Sanjay @ Panchu Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2020 • Sanjay @ Panchu Sahu S/o Late Kaliram Sahu, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Dindori, Outpost Chilpi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Appellant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through, Station House Officer, Police Station- AJAK Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Respondent/State For Appellant :

Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Sameer Uraon, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J Judgment on Board 11.01.2021

1. This appeal by the accused/appellant under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the order dated 16.09.2020 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act 1989, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 13/2020, refusing to allow his regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The appellant is in jail since 23.07.2020 in connection with Crime No. 01/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 366 & 376 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station- AJAK, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.).

2. Allegation against the appellant is that on the pretext of marriage, he abducted the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter he refused to keep her as wife. Therefore, the report was lodged by the prosecutrix against the appellant.

3. Prosecutrix appeared before this Court in person and she has objection to grant of bail to the appellant by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the prosecutrix had gone with the appellant on her own will. He also submits that the appellant is in jail since 23.07.2020, charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, the appellant be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that as per 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecutrix, she stated that she was having affair with the appellant and prior to the incident i.e. 23.06.2020, the appellant had made physical relation with her, she had eloped with the appellant and that F.I.R. was lodged by the prosecutrix on 08.07.2020, the appellant is in jail since 23.07.2020, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

8. It is directed that in the event of appellant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- i.

He 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court.

ii. He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

iii. He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. iv. He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge vatti