Nehru Lal Sinha vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 428 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                      NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                    Order Reserved on : 02.01.2023

                    Order Delivered on : 20/ 01 /2023

                        MCRC No. 10098 of 2022

     • Nehru Lal Sinha S/o Daoolal Sinha Aged About 31 Years R/o
       Hetarkasa, Thana Korar Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---- Applicant

                                 Versus

     • The State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Kotwali, District :
       Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

                                                        ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal,Advocate For Respondent /State : Shri G.P.Kurre, PL

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

C A V Order

20/01/2023

1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail as he is in custody

in connection with Crime No. 158/2022 registered at police station

Kotwali, District Jagdalpur (CG) for the offence punishable under

Sections 376 and 313 IPC.

2. As per prosecution case, the applicant developed physical

relation with the prosecutrix, who is a major on the pretext of marriage

as a result of which she became pregnant. It is further case of

prosecution that the applicant gave medicine to the prosecutrix for

getting aborted and thereafter he denied to marry her.

3. Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has

been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence. He

submits that there was love affair between the applicant and the

prosecutrix who is a major lady aged about 22 years and capable to

understand her well being. He further submits that the FIR was lodged

on 02.05.2022 i.e. almost three months after the so called incident

dated 07.07.2022. He submits that the medical report does not support

the case of prosecution and from the statement of the prosecutrix

recorded by the police, it does not inspire confidence and there is no

evidence with regard to Section 376 and 313 IPC.

4. Counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the

judgment of this Court in the matter of Ansaar Mohammad Vs. State

of Rajasthan (AIR Online 2022 SC 1025) wherein the appellant was

granted anticipatory bail on the ground that the complainant was

willingly staying with the appellant for a period of four years and that

she was major. Further reliance has been placed in the matter of

Javed @ Raja Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (M.Cr.C. No. 8519 of 2022)

passed by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2022 in which this Court

has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of

Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (2020)10 SCC 108

wherein it has been held that the continuous and long relationship

between the parties goes to show that there was no coercion for

misconception on the part of the appellant to obtain consent. T he

appellant did not make any false promise or there was intentional

misrepresentation of marriage leading to establishment of physical

relationship between them.

4. On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application

and submits that looking to the statement of the prosecutrix, the

offence as alleged is made out against the applicant. He submits that

from the evidence on record, it is apparent that the alleged consent

was obtained under misconception of the fact and therefore the

application may be rejected. It is further submitted that from the

statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 and 161 Cr.P.C. this

fact has clearly been established that from the very inception the

applicant was not willing to get married with the prosecutrix and he

further submits that whether the consent was voluntary or obtained by

fraud or misconception of fact can be considered at the time of trial

and not at the stage of deciding his bail application.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

judgments cited by the counsel for the applicant and looking to the

statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 164 and 161

Cr.P.C., the evidence collected so far, age of the prosecutrix and the

prevailing facts and circumstances of this case and considering the

judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Maheshwar Tigga Vs.

State of Jharkhand (2020)10 SCC 108 at this stage, I am inclined to

enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is

allowed.

It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal

bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the

concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following

conditions:

I) He shall appear before the trial court regularly on each and

every date, unless exempted from appearance.

ii) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution

witnesses.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

suguna