Chattisgarh High Court
Dharam Pal Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8928 of 2022
Dharam Pal Chouhan S/o Ashok Kumar Chouhan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village
- Kanshi Chhuaa, Police Station - Bhupedopur, Tahsil - Dongitarai, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Bhupdeopur,
Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Non-Applicant
For the Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate
For Non-Applicant : Mr. B. P. Banjare, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
16.11.2022
1.
The applicant has preferred the first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC
for grant of regular bail as he is in jail since 27.05.2022 in connection with
Crime No.70/2022 registered at Police Station- Bhupdeopur, District- Raigarh
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 of IPC and Sections 4, 6
of POCSO Act.
2. The case of prosecution in brief, is that on 26.05.2022 the complainant has
lodged a report alleging that the applicant has been committed sexual
intercourse with prosecutrix since 2016. Further on 15.11.2021, the prosecutrix
and applicant eloped and on the next day, the applicant left the prosecutrix
outside her house and ran away. Therefore, report has been lodged against
the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed
any crime and the allegation against him is that since 2016 prosecutrix was
subjected to sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage and relationship
was continued till 2021, he further submits that the applicant and the victim are
of the same age and they were studying together, therefore, some relationship
was developed between them. Thereafter, on 23.05.2022 brother of victim
show them together on motorcycle. He further submits that at the time of
lodging the FIR victim was major and even otherwise last intercourse was took
place on 15.11.2021 and report was lodged on 26.05.2022, there is delay of
about 6 months in lodging the FIR. He submits that applicant is in jail since
27.05.2022, trial is likely to take some time, charge-sheet has been filed,
therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of
Jharkhand1 also in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of
1(2020) 10 SCC 108
Maharashtra and another2.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application
and submits that at the time of commission of crime she was minor and delay
has been explained that she was under the influence of applicant and submits
that in the year 2020 he has demanded Rs.50,000/- and marriage could not be
materialized, Therefore, his application may be rejected.
5. On 14.11.2022 victim and her parents appeared before this Court through
DLSA and raised serious objection for grant of bail to the applicant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of
allegations and the prosecutrix was a major lady at the time of FIR and
evidence collected so far by the prosecution, and also in view of judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Maheshwar Tigga (Supra) and
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (Supra), detention period, charge-sheet has been
filed and trial may take some time, without commenting anything on merits of
the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.
8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it is directed
that applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall appear before the trial Court
on each and every date given by the said trial Court, till disposal of the trial.
9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose
of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will decide the case on its
own merit without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. It is
also made clear that the victim/complainant or State is at liberty to move an
application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicant in the event of
applicant involving himself in similar offence in future. It is made clear that he is
restrained from meeting to any of the witnesses.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
parul Judge
2(2019) 9 SCC 608
