Manish Taunk v. State Of Chhattisgarh

MCRCA No. 1201 of 2020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order reserved on 16-12-2020 Order delivered on 06-01-2021 MCRCA No. 1201 of 2020 • Manish Taunk S/o Shri Girdhar Lal Taunk, Aged About 44 Years R/o Jaidad Gurudev Krishi Farm, Chuikhadan, Post Karamtara, Tahsil - Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Lalbagh, District - Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Applicants :- Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondent /State :- Mr. Sameer Uraon, G. A.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra CAV Order

1. Heard.

2. The applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.308/2020, registered at Police Station Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. for offence punishable under Sections 323, 354, 354B, 452 of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecutrix, a married lady, aged about 38 years, lodged First Information Report (FIR) against the applicant alleging that when she was alone in her house in the evening of 28-7-2020, the applicant committed house trespass and sexually molested her by pressing her breast and inserting his hand in her underwear. The applicant also torn her clothes and tried to undress her. When she

MCRCA No. 1201 of 2020 resisted, the applicant picked up a club lying in the house and assaulted the prosecutrix.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the complainant and her husband are involved in an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, therefore, the present false complaint has been lodged.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. Learned counsel would submit that, as per the information received from the concerned Police, the applicant being an influential person was trying to pressurize and win over the prosecutrix.

6. Material available in the case diary indicates that immediately after the incident, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination wherein she was found to have sustained several abrasions over different parts of body. She has reiterated the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. There is nothing in the record as to why the prosecutrix would lodge a false report against the applicant.

7. Considering the nature of allegations supported by the medical report and statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. SD/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Gowri