Allowed

Ritesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2022CRA/1531/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail in a case involving allegations of rape under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, granting bail on personal bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed and the appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety for a like amount.

Ritesh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 1531 of 2022

¶5

Ritesh Singh S/o Jaleshwar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Lalbahadur Shashtri Hospital Supela, Near Sharda Medical, Panchrasta, Police Station Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station AJAK, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶9

--- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : ShrI Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For State : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Dy.A.G.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

05/12/2022

¶14

This appeal arises out of impugned order dated 05/09/2022 in Special Case No.12/2022 by which, learned Special Judge, Durg (CG) has rejected application for grant of regular bail filed by the appellant.

¶15

The appellant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.339/2022 registered at Police Station – AJAK Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 376 (2) (n), 493, 506, 313, 417 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’).

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant, on the pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and when she became pregnant, he gave medicine to get aborted.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and the prosecutrix both are major and they had cordial relationship and it appears from the evidence collected by the prosecution that the prosecutrix was a

¶18

¶19

consenting party. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged in the year 2020 for the offence took place in the year 2017 and 2019 i.e. after a long delay of 2 to 3 years. It is further submitted that the appellant was extended benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court in MCrCA No.784/2020 vide order dated 07/08/2020 and he has not misused the liberty granted. He further submits that offence under Section 313 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 was added during the course of investigation and the appellant was arrested and he is in jail since 04/08/2022. It is next submitted that there is no sufficient evidence to attract offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 because as per the evidence collected, the alleged abortion of the prosecutrix was conducted in Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital and it cannot be said that abortion could take place without the consent of the prosecutrix. He submits that it is not established from the records that the alleged offence was committed on the prosecutrix, knowing fully that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and material collected by the prosecution, the appellant may be granted bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the allegation against the present applicant is serious in nature and looking to the evidence collected by the prosecution, at this stage, the appeal may be dismissed. However, learned State counsel fairly submits that when the FIR was lodged, offence under Section 313 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 were not added and it came to be added subsequently during the course of investigation and the appellant was extended benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court for the offence registered in the FIR.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

¶22

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, evidence collected so far, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶24

¶25

trial Court on the condition that -

¶26

a) He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

¶27

b) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶28

c) He is restrained from meeting any of the prosecution witnesses till conclusion of trial.

¶29

It is made clear that if any violation of any of the conditions is brought to the notice of the trial Court, learned trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the appellant.

¶30

Certified copy as per rules.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

( Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶33

Deepti

Ritesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Singh 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

Tarun Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ritesh Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samir Chatterjee Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Visheshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashish Singh Kachhwaha @ Chotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh