Roshan Lal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 467 Chatt

                                           1

                                                                                 NAFR
                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               CRA No. 1907 of 2022
     Roshan Lal Sahu S/o Ganpati Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village
      Godhna, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Appellant

                                        Versus

     State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Police Station Nawagarh
      District Sakti Chhattisgarh (Janjgir Champa Wrongly Mentioned In Order
      Sheet)

                                                                         --Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Ranjan Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vinod Tekam, P.L.

For Objector                       :      Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate



                     Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                                  Order On Board
23.01.2023

1. This appeal arises out of impugned order dated 05/11/2022 passed in Case No. 967/2022 by which, learned Special Judge, Atrocities Janjgir (C.G) has rejected application for grant of regular bail filed by the appellant.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.05.2022 the appellant again and again was making a pressure to perform marriage with deceased thereby she felt tortured and deceased consumed poison and she committed suicide herself.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation against the present appellant is that he used to harass the deceased for getting marriage with him and under that pressure deceased has consumed poison on 14.05.2022 thereafter she was discharged from the hospital on 23.05.2022 and she remained in her home for almost 28 days. On 31.05.2022 when her health again deteriorated, she was re-admitted on 01.06.2022 in the hospital and she was forcibly discharged on 03.06.2022 for admitting in CIMS, Bilaspur but instead of CIMS, Bilaspur she was admitted in Care & Cure Hospital, Bilaspur on 03.06.2022, where she remained in admission almost 6-7 days and at their own risk the family members of deceased discharged her on 10.06.2022 and admitted her to CIMS, Bilaspur, where she succumbed on 10.06.2022 in the night hours. He submits that there is no ingredients of section 107 available to connect the

present appellant commission of a crime under Section 306 of the IPC. He further submits that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed and he is in jail since 26.10.2022. He further submits that during this period from 14.05.2022 till 10.06.2022 police did not record any statement of the victim to suggest that it is the appellant who has committed any instigation or harassment which persuaded the deceased to commit suicide. In order to buttress his submissions, he places reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in LL2021 SC 467 Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. particularly paragraph 9 and 10. He also places reliance upon a Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in BLAPL No. 3623 of 2021, Safi @ Somnath Sahu Vs. State of Orissa. In light of above submissions, he prays that the application of grant of bail may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the father of the deceased categorically in his 161 Crpc statement stated that appellant forcing the deceased to marry and under that pressure, instigation and duress of the appellant, she committed suicide. He further submits that though police has recovered suicide note but the same is not part of the charge-sheet and it has sent for handwriting expert for opinion, looking to the material collected by prosecution, the application may be rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the Objector vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that it is the appellant who pressurized, instigated the deceased therefore she committed suicide therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant bail from this Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

7. Considered the facts and circumstances of the case, considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, evidence collected by prosecution, charge-sheet has already been filed, trial is likely to take some time, looking to the period of detention, I am inclined to allow this appeal.

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/- each 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 meeting with prosecution witnesses till conclusion of trial.

9. It is made clear that if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the appellants, the State / victim would be free to move for cancellation of bail. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge vaishali