Mukesh Devangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 588 Chatt

                                         1

                                                   Order Reserved on 25.11.2022
                                                 Order Pronounced on 30.01.2023
                                                                          NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            MCRC No. 6349 of 2022

     Mukesh Devangan, aged 31 years, S/o Shri Khorbahra Devangan, R/o Village
     - Kurmandi, P.S. - Arang, Dist: Raipur (C.G.)
                                                               ---- Applicant
                                      Versus

     State Of Chhattisgarh, Though Station House Officer, P.S. Telibandha, Distt
     Raipur (C.G.)

                                                     ----Non-Applicant
 ___________________________________________________________________

For Applicant:             Ms Saumya Sharma Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State:   Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer
____________________________________________________________________

                                    CAV Order

                   Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

1.

The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.138/2022, registered at Police Station - Telibandha, District - Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the minor prosecutrix on several occasion on false pretext of marriage thereby committed the said offence.

3. Ms. Saumya Sharma learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed the aforesaid crime and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that age of the prosecutrix is more than 18 years but she has been shown as 17 years. There is a delay in lodging the FIR. The conduct of the prosecutrix itself shows that she was consenting party. It has come in the investigation that the applicant has married with the prosecutrix. She further submits that prosecutrix never made any complaint during this period hence her statement cannot be believed. Investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed, applicant is in jail from 03.03.2022, trial is likely to take some time, Therefore the application may be allowed and the

applicant may be released on regular bail. In order to buttress her submissions she placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1965 SC 942, State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Omkar Prasad and another (2012) 2 CGBCLJ 442, Manish Singh Vs. State Govt of NCT and others AIR 2006 Del 37, order dated 19.10.2022 in case of Kanhaiya Lal Kewat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in M.Cr.C. No. 8200 of 2022.

4. Refuting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vinod Tekam learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State vehemently argued that from the evidence collected by the prosecution case is made out against the applicant. He further submits that from the statement of the prosecutrix it is aptly clear that the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He submits that the prosecutrix is was less than 18 years at the time of commission of crime. Even otherwise the factum of consent can be determined at the time of trial and at this stage it cannot be looked into by this court. In view of the above submissions he prays that the application of the applicant may be rejected. Prosecutrix had objected to grant of bail to the applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and also perused the case diary.

6. In light of the above pronouncement and after examination of the material collected by the prosecution, looking to the age of the prosecutrix and applicant, nature of allegation and after giving thoughtful consideration on the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this court is inclined to allow the application of the applicant. The application for grant of regular bail is allowed and he shall be released on bail on him furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial on the following conditions:-

(i) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court,

(ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

(iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial unless exempted.

(iv) He shall not meet any of the prosecution witnesses till conclusion of trial.

7. It is made clear that the observation made herein above is only for the purpose of decision making of the bail applications of the applicant and to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It will not have any bearing on the merits of the case. The learned trial court will decide the case on it own merits without being influenced by any observation made herein above. If the applicant violates any of the conditions stated above, state would be free to move for cancellation of bail.

8. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

Sachin Singh Rajput Judge

Kamde