Single judge allowed anticipatory bail application for apprehended arrest in sexual offence case, noting prior withdrawal of similar allegations by prosecutrix and lack of absconding risk.
Applicant released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety for same sum upon arrest, subject to standard bail conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1282 of 2019
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board
16/10/2019
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant/prosecutrix in the present case. She further submits that earlier also on 09.06.2015, the prosecutrix made a complaint before police station in which she made allegations against the sons of the applicant. The sons of the applicant also made a complaint against the prosecutrix, on the basis of which a separate offence has been registered. Thereafter, prosecutrix entered into compromise with the sons of the applicant and filed compromise application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara. In support of her application, she has also submitted an affidavit in which she specifically stated that due to tiff between her and sons of the applicant, she had lodged the report. Thereafter, on 23.03.2016, the complainant/prosecutrix made a written report against the applicant alleging therein that without her willingness, the applicant used to commit sexual intercourse with her for last so many days. Thereafter, the complainant/prosecutrix again made an application before Superintendent of Police, Bemetara in which she specifically stated that she does not want to take any action against the applicant due to love affair between them. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant being a political person, therefore, to ruin his reputation, the complainant/prosecutrix lodged the false report repeatedly against the applicant. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that being aggrieved by the registration of offence under Sections 376 & 506 (B) of the IPC, the applicant had filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. bearing CRMP No. 732/2016 for quashing of FIR before this Court, in which this Court has stayed the proceedings in crime no. 278/2016 i.e. the present case. She lastly submits that the applicant is a reputed person of his society, he is permanent resident of above mentioned address and there is no chance of his absconding, therefore, he may be granted benefit anticipatory bail.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant facing charges under Sections 376 and 506(B) IPC.
Whether the prosecutrix's prior withdrawal of allegations against the applicant's sons affects bail considerations.
Whether the applicant, being a local reputed person with no risk of absconding, qualifies for interim relief.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ayodhya Chandrakar
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bemetara
Arvind Singh Chandel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
