Kamlesh Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7752 of 2016 Kamlesh Chandrakar S/o Baldau Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 43 Years R/o Sirsakala, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police StationSupela, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For applicant - Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate. For Respondent/State - Shri U.K.S. Chandel, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 7/12/2016 1.

The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.865/2016 registered in Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg (CG) for offence punishable under sections 366, 376(2)(g), 120B, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2.

As per the prosecution case, a report was made by the victim on 20/09/2016 that initially she met with one L.B. Verma while travelling in a bus and in order to expand her business of health management she subsequently met Ajit Singh, Kamlesh Chandrakar present applicant, Girish Khaparde who was introduced by L.B. Verma. Subsequently, she came close to one of the accused Ajit Singh and when she went to Jagdalpur alongwith Ajit Singh and stayed in a hotel and on the pretext of marriage he committed forcefull sexual intercourse. This happened in the month of July, 2016. Subsequently, she decided to force Ajit Singh for marriage. Thereafter, while the marriage papers were prepared at that time she went to Advocate L.B. Verma wherein Kamlesh Chandrakar and

Girish Khaparde were present, at that time all the other co-accused have forcefully committed rape. This incident continued and subsequently one more accused namely Dulal Chatterjee who came in contact with the victim committed sexual intercourse and further she was subjected to threatening that in case she raises voice all the incident would be made public.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that completely improbable story has been projected and the manner the incident happened, she referred to the statement of victim and another witness Nitu Shrivastava and would submits that no offence is made out and no detail of call in between the applicant and the victim are on record, thereore the applicant has been falsely implicated and he may be released on bail.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 5.

Perused the case diary, statement and report of the victim. It is not disputed by the State counsel that there is no call detail been made by the applicant to the victim as alleged. Considering such submission made and also reading the statement, without further observation on the merits, this court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. 6.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned trial court for his regular appearance before it as and when directed.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri