Allowed

Ajay Hardiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Feb 2021MCRCA/1765/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Chhattisgarh granted relief to the applicant who faced serious sexual offence charges. The court noted that while the applicant only attempted blackmail without sexual success, the co-accused had been granted bail, forming the basis for extending anticipatory bail to the present applicant on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on personal bond for Rs. 50,000 with one surety, subject to standard bail conditions.

Ajay Hardiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

MCRCA No. 1765 of 2020

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MCRCA No. 1765 of 2020

¶6

Ajay Hardiya, son of Surendra Kumar Hardiya, aged 28 years, Occupation Service, R/o LW/6, Sethi Nagar, District Ujjain (MP)

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Non-Applicant

¶11

For Applicant : Shri Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Alok Nigam, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

10/02/2021 :

¶15

The applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.766/2020, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur for offences punishable under Sections 376, 385 and 500/34 of the IPC.

¶16

The prosecutrix, aged about 26 years, joined the PSC coaching at Bilaspur in 2017 and started residing at Punjabi Colony, Dayalbandh, Bilaspur. She came in contact with co-accused Rajnish Tiwari through facebook and thereafter exchanged the mobile numbers and developed an affair with him. It is alleged that Rajnish Tiwari committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix in December, 2018 and called her to village Kotma where they stayed together for a period of 10 days, during which she was subjected to sexual intercourse which continued till October, 2019. During this period, the applicant came in contact with the prosecutrix and tried to blackmail her by sending his intimate

¶17

¶18

MCRCA No. 1765 of 2020

¶19

photographs with the prosecutrix to Rajnish Tiwari. Thereafter this applicant and co-accused Rajnish Tiwari tried to jointly exploit the prosecutrix sexually, but they did not succeed. Fed up with the effort of the accused persons to blackmail her, she lodged the FIR.

¶20

Learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the Objector would oppose the bail application.

¶21

Admittedly, the present applicant never succeeded in committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. It was co-accused Rajnish Tiwari who sexually exploited the prosecutrix from December, 2018 to October, 2019. As against the present applicant, the allegation is only of trying to blackmail and seek sexual favour from the prosecutrix in which he did not succeed. Co-accused Rajnish Tiwari has already been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure-A/2).

¶22

Considering that the co-accused facing very serious allegations has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant also.

¶23

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) he shall not influence the witnesses during trial.

¶25

(ii) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶26

(iii) 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶27

Sd/Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra)

¶28

¶29

MCRCA No. 1765 of 2020

¶30

Barve

Ajay Hardiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Hardiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanesh Markandey, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakeswar Singh Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajadhar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Vishwakarma Vs Bharat Sahu

Surendra Bhagat @ Surendra Ram Vs the State of Chhattisgarh