Veer Bahadur @ Bunty Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4380 of 2017 Veer Bahadur @ Bunty Thakur, S/o. Shri Prasann Rajput, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Village Antagarh, Police Station & Tahsil- Antagarh, Civil & Revenue District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 29.06.2017 1.

This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 52/2015 registered at Police Station- Antagarh, District North Baskar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376-2(<) of Indian Penal Code. The first bail application was dismissed on merit on 19.07.2016 in MCRC No. 3056 of 2016. 2.

As per the prosecution case, in brief, on the pretext of marriage, the applicant sexually exploited the prosecutrix and out of the physical relation a child was born. Subsequently, when the prosecutrix wanted to marry, it was refused by the applicant. Thereby, the offence has been committed.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the statement of the prosecutrix and submits that reading of the statement would show that she was a consenting party and was in know of the fact that

the applicant was married and despite that she developed relation, therefore, no case of rape is made out. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 06.03.2016, therefore, he may be released on bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5.

Perused the case diary and statement of witnesses. Detail statements have been made as long as 42 paras. Reading of the statement would show that the facts which are narrated is to be appreciated by the trial Court as to whether the offence is made out or not or any fraud is committed or not. It is not proper for this Court to give a finding as it may prejudice the right of the parties. Considering the statement, I do not find any change of circumstances to reconsider the instant second bail application. 6.

Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok