Smt. Reeta Goutam v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 844 of 2020 Smt. Reeta Goutam W/o Shri Bharat Goutam Aged About 35 Years R/o Jharsuguda, (Oddisha), At Present Address Kududand, Bilaspur Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Alok Nigam, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 04.09.2020
1. The matter is heard through Video Conferencing.
2. The applicant has filed this First Bail Application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.151/2020, registered at Police Station: Civil Line, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 365, 346 & 323 of IPC.
3. In this case, the age of the victim girl is about 13 years. According to the case of prosecution, on 04.03.2020, the mother of the victim girl lodged a written report, stating therein that her daughter is missing since 02.03.2020. Thereafter, on 09.03.2020, the prosecutrix was found roaming inside the company garden situated at Bilaspur (C.G.). The victim girl disclosed that main accused person Narendra Gond has taken her to the house of present Applicant and there the present Applicant harassed her for not doing domestic work. On the basis of said, offence has been registered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that Prima Facie no case can be made out against the present Applicant under Section 363 & 365 of IPC and other offences under Section 346 & 323 of IPC are bailable in nature therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State opposes the bail application.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, without further commenting on other merits of the case, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting her and she shall abide by all the following terms and conditions:- I.
That the accused/applicant shall made herself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required;
II.
The accused/applicant 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer;
III.
The accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and IV.
The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Saurabh