Ganesh Rai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2820 of 2020 • Ganesh Rai S/o Shri Govind Rai Aged About 21 Years R/o 18 Block Mana Camp, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Adv.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Raghvendra Verma, G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 02/06/2020

1. Heard on admission.

2. Admit.

3. 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. 44/2020 registered at Police Station Mana Camp, DistrictRaipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.

4. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 10.05.2020 prosecutrix lodged a report that, the prosecutrix came to know the applicant about 6 months ago, when the applicant confessed his love for the prosecutrix and told her that applicant is willing to marry with the prosecutrix, thereafter, the mother of the applicant visited the home of the prosecutrix and told to the mother of the prosecutrix that she wants the prosecutrix to be daughter-in-law of her home and accordingly, invited the prosecutrix in her home and introduced prosecutrix to the other members of the family.

So, the prosecutrix started spending time with the applicant and they developed physical relation with each other, the sexual relations between the applicant and prosecutrix started from February 2020 to 20.04.2020, thereafter, the applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix. Based on this offence has been registered against the present applicant.

5. 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 and prosecutrix had love affair with each other and they both wanted to marry, moreover, the prosecutrix herself developed sexual relations with the applicant. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 11.05.2020, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.

6. 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.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

8. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, detention period of applicant and further considering the facts that the age of the prosecutrix is more than 19 years and the applicant is in jail since 11.05.2020, 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.

9. 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.

10. 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