Bunty @ Karan Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 460 of 2016
1. Bunty @ Karan Sharma, aged about 26 years, S/o. Gulshan Sharma, R/o. Birgaon, P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) ----Applicant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : SHO, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. V.C. Ottalwar & Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 05/02/2016 1.
This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.333/2015, registered at Police Station - Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 323, 506B, 442, 120B, 376, 354 of I.P.C. The earlier bail application was dismissed on 27.10.2015 in M.Cr.C.No.5718/2015 on merits.
2.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.09.2015, written complaint was lodged by the complainant alleging that the present applicant, Bunti Sharma called the victim to meet him then she came to meet him near Narayana Hospital then the applicant forced her to drink and thereafter left alongwith Manik Bagga and thereafter, the other co-accused, Manik Bagga committed marpit and rape with her.
Page No.2 3.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecutrix, Pinki Singh has been examined before the Court and in examinationin-chief, she has not narrated anything against the applicant. It is further contended that entire allegation have been attributed against the accused, Manik Bugga that he assaulted and thereafter committed rape. Therefore, taking into the fact that the prosecutrix has not deposed anything against this applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and would submit that an application was filed before the Court below during the trial by the prosecutrix on 05.01.2015, wherein it was stated that the prosecutrix only wanted to get her examined by the counsel for the accused, Bunti Sharma, which leads to show the fact that the accused, Bunti Sharma is able to manage the affairs in trial.
5.
Learned counsel for the applicant submit that nothing has been recorded in the order sheet.
6.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
7.
Perused the statement of the prosecutrix. The written report is marked as Ex.P/1. The written report is also seen, wherein the name of the Bunti Sharma appeared that he administered liquor to the girl by force. The deposition sheet of the trial court would show that when such cross-examination was being conducted by the counsel of Bunti Sharma, the other counsel, who appeared before the Court intervened in the proceeding on top of his voice as such, the cross-examination
Page No.3 could not be completed. Considering the fact the statement of prosecutrix who is within mids of the examination have made certain statement, whereby this applicant has been exonerated but had earlier deposed and made report against this applicant. Considering the particular development of the statement of the prosecutrix the entire statement along-with other documents are to be appreciated by the Trial Court during the trial. Separate individual statement could not be picked up for application of bail as it will amount to appreciate the entire evidence, which may affect the case on merits. Consequently, this Court do not feel it proper to go into the statement of the prosecutrix to appreciate it at this stage, wherein she has not been fully cross-examined by ignoring the other documents, which is placed by the prosecution. Considering the nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
8.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram