Dulal Chatterji v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8419 of 2016 Dulal Chatterji, S/o. Late Shri Dhananjay Chatterji, Aged About 59 Years, R/o. 16- Amrawati Defense Collony Durgapur, Thana - MAMC, Civil & Revenue District Wardhman (West Bangal) --- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police StationSupela, Civil & Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For the Applicant :
Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For the Respondent :
:
Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer For the objector :
Ms. Sudha Bharadwaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 17.01.2017
1. This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 865 of 2016 registered at Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), 120-B, 506 of IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. As per the prosecution case, a report was made by the victim on 20.09.2016 that initially she met Lal Bahadur Verma while traveling in a Bus and in order to expand her business of health management she subsequently met Ajit Singh, Kamlesh Chandrakar, Girish Khaparde who were introduced by Lal Bahadur Verma. Subsequently she came close to one of the accused Ajit Singh and when she went to Jagdalpur along-with Ajit Singh and stayed in a hotel, he committed forcible sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage. This happened in the month of July 2016. Subsequently she decided to force Ajit
Singh for marriage. Thereafter, while the marriage papers were being prepared at that time she went to Lal Bahadur Verma, Advocate where the other accused Kamlesh Chandrakar and Girish Khaparde were present and they forcibly committed rape. It is alleged that the offence was committed on more than one occasion. Subsequently one more accused Dulal Chatterjee, the present applicant, who came in contact with victim also 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 would submit that the entire story as projected is completely improbable and the manner the incident happened do not inspire confidence. The applicant further referred to the statement of victim and would submit that there is delay in lodging the FIR and further no call details have been placed showing the conversation between the applicant and the victim. It is also submitted that the other accused Kamlesh Chandrakar and Girish Khaparde have been enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.7752 of 2016 and M.Cr.C.No. 7527 of 2016. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 17.08.2016 therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the objector opposes the bail. During the argument, certain call details were shown and it is submitted by the objector that in between the period from 29.07.2016 to 07.08.2016, the location of the call details of the present applicant has been eliminated, which shows that the investigation has not been carried out properly. It is further submitted that though the application under Section 178(3) was not pressed by the police but in-fact the investigation is going on as certain seizure was made on 14.01.2017, therefore, it would show that sorry investigation has been made by the police.
5. Perused the case diary and other documents. Also perused the statement of victim wherein allegations of rape on two occasions have been attributed one in the month of July 2016 and the other in August 2016. However, no plausible explanation has been given for the delay in lodging the report. However, it is observed that the call details which were of the present applicant which were shown that the place has been eliminated though the call has been made, it is not clear as to how such place of call details are missing, which raises a doubt in respect of the investigation.
6. Considering the delay in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation has been given thereof and further considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that similarly placed co-accused have been enlarged on bail by this Court; the charge sheet in this case has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 17.08.2016, I am inclined to release this applicant also on bail. However, taking into the totality, it is directed that the applicant shall abide by further investigation, if is required and cooperate with the police.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall also appear before the trial Court as and when directed by the said Court. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE ashok