Chattisgarh High Court
Hassan Mubarak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1030 of 2022
Hassan Mubarak, S/o Eid Mohmmed, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Teen Batti Chowk, Ward No. -11, Nandini
Nagar, Ahiwara, Durg District Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer,
Police Station- Nandini Nagar, Durg District- Durg
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. adv. with
Mr. Navin Shukla, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, P.L.
For Objector : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Adv.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
17.10.2022
Heard
1. This application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant who
is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.
177/2022 registered at Police Station- Nandini Nagar,
District- Durg, (C.G.) for commission of the offence
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, 34 of
IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution is that, it has been alleged
against the applicant that on the pretext of marriage, he
forcefully established physical relation with the
complainant, offence has been registered against the
present applicant.
3. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned senior counsel appearing for
the applicant submits that the present applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
She further submits that the complainant was already
married and has a 10 year old son who lives with her.
She also submits that there is unexplained delay in
lodging the FIR against the applicant which shows that a
false and concocted story has been cooked by the
complainant, therefore, the present applicant may be
granted anticipatory bail. Reliance has been placed on
the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Ansaar Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan
and another passed in 2022 SCC Online SC 886.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State however
opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits
that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. complainant has made serious allegation against
the applicant, therefore, he may not be granted
anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering in particular that complainant is a major
lady, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that
in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with
aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-
with one local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction
of the concerned arresting/ investigating officer or the
Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following
terms and conditions:
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation before the concerned investigating officer
as and when required.
(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts or the case as to dissuade
him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;
(iii) that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date given to him by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Ruchi
