Chattisgarh High Court
Yashwant Kumar Vishwakarma @ Babu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1233 of 2022
• Yashwant Kumar Vishwakarma @ Babu S/o Rameshwar Ram Aged About 24
Years Caste Lohar, R/o Village Kadamtoli, Jashpur Nagar, Tahsil And District
Jashpur Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
• The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jashpur Nagar, District
Jashpur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri A.K.Prasad, Advocate
For State : Shri Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
26/09/2022
This appeal arises out of impugned order dated 25/07/2022 passed in
B.A.No.13/2022 by which, learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 Jashpur, District - Jashpur (CG) has rejected application
for grant of regular bail filed by the appellant.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant committed sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been
falsely implicated. The prosecutrix is major and according to the prosecution
story, the first incident of sexual intercourse was happened in the year 2018
on the pretext of marriage and it continued till March, 2022. It is submitted
that no promise has been made by the appellant to marry with the prosecutrix
and it is the prosecutrix herself who assumed this fact. It is next submitted
that the prosecutrix is major and is capable of understanding the
consequences. It is submitted that the appellant voluntarily entered into the
relationship and continued for so many years and when it did not work out,
report has been lodged against the applicant. He relies upon judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand,
(2020) 10 SCC 108 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of
Maharashtra and anr. (2019) 9 SCC 608. Therefore, this appeal may be
allowed and impugned order may be set aside as the appellant is in jail since
06/04/2022 and charge sheet has been filed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that charge sheet has
been filed, however, looking to her statement under Section 161 CrPC, the
prosecutrix has leveled allegations against the appellant and from her
statement, it is apparent that from the very inception itself, the appellant was
not willing to marry the prosecutrix. Therefore, the alleged consent was
obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of fact. Therefore, in view of Section
90 of IPC and Section 114 (A) of the Evidence Act, the presumption is against
the present appellant.
5. On 01/09/2022, the prosecutrix appeared through video conferencing
and objected for grant of bail to the appellant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Looking to the overt act, period of relationship between the parties, the
applicant is in jail since 06/04/2022, trial is likely to take some time and
reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Maheshwar Tigga (supra) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), I am
inclined to allow this appeal with stringent conditions.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order rejecting bail
application of the appellant is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- along with one solvent surety for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on the condition that -
a) He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every
date, unless exempted from appearance.
b) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution
witnesses.
d) He is restrained from visiting the village of the prosecutrix, till she is
examined.
It is made clear that if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the
appellant, the State / prosecutrix would be free to move for cancellation of
bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
( Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
Deepti
