Ram Kumar Koirala v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2074 of 2020 • Ram Kumar Koirala S/o Late Goferam Koirala, aged about 36 years, Caste-Satnami, R/o Village-Vidyadih (Kaneri), Police Chowki-Malhar, P.S. Masturi, Civil & Revenue District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Station House OfÏcerr, Police Station-Bilha, Civil & Revenue District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For Applicant :
Mr. P. M. Shriwas, Adv.
For Respondent/State :
Mr. Ayaz Naved, G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 16/06/2020
1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 337/2017 registered at Police Station Bilha, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, marriage of the complainant was solemnized 18 years prior, but latter on after two years of their marriage her husband has died and thereafter the applicant/accused has contacted several times to the complainant to made physical relation with promise to marry her, their relations had been running about 12-13 years peacefully and during that time applicant/accused has obtained/received Rs. 5,00,000/- from her to deposit in the bank, and when she demanded return her money the applicant ran away in the other state Jharkhand. Based on this offence has been registered against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the applicant was working as
an agent in the Sai Prasad Group of company, Maharashtra in which he deposited the sum of complainant, though company is liable to return the money. He next submits that the age of the prosecutrix is 35 years and the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2020, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegation against the applicant is of serious in nature, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, detention period of applicant and further considering that the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2020, and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
7. Accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court.
8. It is made clear that if the applicant has already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bond already furnished in view of the order passed by the High Power Committee constituted in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 23.03.2020 in the matter of In Re : Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons (Suo Moto Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020), he need not furnish bail bond afresh and the bail bond already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bond furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if he has not furnished the bail bond earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bond within four weeks from today.
Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge H.L. Sahu