Allowed

Mohan @ Manmohan Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2022MCRCA/1100/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail for Mohan Agrawal facing charges under IPC and POCSO Act for outraging modesty and offending the child. Concerns were raised regarding the complainant's delay in reporting and the applicant's timeline.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety.

Mohan @ Manmohan Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 1100 of 2022

¶5

Mohan @ Manmohan Agrawal, aged about 44 years, S/o Radheshyam Agrawal, R/o Ward No. 3, Gandhi Chowk Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶6

------Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through: the District Magistrate, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

------- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate.

¶11

For Non-applicant- State : Mr. Amit Singh, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate

¶12

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶13

ORDER ON BOARD

¶14

01/09/2022

¶15

Applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 255/2022 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

¶16

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that prosecutrix lodged written report to the concerned police station stating therein that in the month of December 2019 co-accused Abhishek Agrawal came to her while she was returning back to her home from her work place in the evening at about 07:00 pm, requested her to get in his car stating that he would drop to her home. On repeated request made by co-accused Abhishek, she got in the car and thereafter he, instead of dropping her to her home, took to lonely place, committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and prepared video clip. Further, under the threat of making video clip viral, he committed sexual intercourse with her on several occasions at different places in past 2½ years. Due to continuous physical relationship, he became pregnant. Co-accused forcefully administered some medicine in her mouth due to which she suffered miscarriage. On 24.06.2022, applicant (uncle of co-accused Abhishek Agrawal) stopped her on the way, gave threat, abused her

¶17

¶18

in filthy language and asked her for sexual favour and also touched her with bad intention, she somehow managed to escape from the spot. In the complaint she also stated that she tried to ran away from her place of residence and reached Raipur. From their she was brought back by her relatives. Based on the aforementioned complaint, F.I.R. was registered against applicant and other coaccused person for offence as mentioned above.

¶19

Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that this application is filed only with respect to one accused named in F.I.R. who is uncle of Abhishek Agrawal. All allegations of establishing physical relationship with prosecutrix are against Abhishek Agrawal. Only allegation levelled against applicant is, that on 24.06.2022, he threatened prosecutrix, asked for sexual favour and touched her with bad intention. Allegations against applicant are absolutely false and baseless. He contended that applicant along with co-accused Abhishek went to Tirupati via Chennai by flight. They boarded flight from Raipur on 19.06.2022. Copy of tickets and boarding pass of applicant and co-accused is filed as Annexure A-3. He further contended that applicant stayed at SRM hotel in Chennai. Copy of tax invoice of SRM Hotel Pvt. Ltd. is placed on record at page No. 21 wherein it is mentioned stay of 2-Adults; arrival on 21.06.2022 and departure on 22.06.2022. Applicant obtained pass for Break Darshan on 23.06.2022 for 06.15 AM, copy of which is placed at page No. 23. Thereafter, he returned back to Bilaspur by train (Tirupati-Bilaspur Express), copy of ticket is placed on record at Annexure A-5, boarded train on 23.06.2022. He contended that the scheduled time of reaching of train at Bilaspur is mentioned as 05:25 pm however on the said date ie., 24.06.2022, train reached at Bilaspur only on 06:17 PM. Applicant is resident of Naila, Janjgir-Champa and prosecutrix is also residence of same vicinity. After de-boarding from the train, applicant might have taken some time to reach Jangir-Champa on 24.06.2022, hence, allegation levelled against applicant of commission of crime of any nature is absolutely false and baseless and with ulterior motive, hence, he may be enlarged on bail. He also submits that on the alleged date of committing offence by applicant, prosecutrix was more than 20 years of age.

¶20

On the other hand, Mr. Amit Singh, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that though the allegation of establishing physical relationship with prosecutrix is levelled against co-accused Abhishek Agrawal but

¶21

¶22

as per the written report and contents of F.I.R., serious allegations of outraging modesty of prosecutrix are levelled against applicant as well. He read-over the contents of complaint in support of his contentions as also the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC.

¶23

Prosecutrix is also present before this Court along with counsel and objects anticipatory bail application. Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for objector/ complainant further pointed out that the allegations levelled against applicant are serious, of outraging the modesty of prosecutrix and also threatening her. He submits that some unknown persons again gave threat to complainant and family members on 16.08.2022 for taking back complaint lodged against Abhishek Agrawal and present applicant which is placed on record at Annexure O-2, hence, applicant is not entitle for grant benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the written report as also F.I.R. and the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.

¶25

In the complaint, date of commission of offence is shown as 24.06.2022, on the road, and time is not mentioned therein. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, the date of commission of offence by applicant is shown as 24.06.2022 and time is mentioned as “in the Afternoon”. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC on 12.07.2022, the date of commission of alleged offence by applicant is mentioned as 26.06.2022 but time is not mentioned. Anticipatory bail application filed by applicant was rejected on 13.07.2022. Applicant filed the documents to show that he went to Tirupati via Chennai on 19.06.2022 by placing Air tickets and boarding pass. Tax invoice of hotel SRM where he took stay along with co-accuse on 21.06.2022 to 22.06.2022 and further return journey rail ticket showing start of journey on 23.06.2022 from Tirupati to Bilaspur and arrival of train at Bilaspur is shown as 05:25 PM but it reached, as per Annexure A-6, at 06:17 PM.

¶26

Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and the material available in the case diary, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶27

¶28

Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question (255/2022), he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:

¶29

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when required;

¶30

(ii) that the applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶31

(iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶32

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶35

P.a.w.a.n.

Mohan @ Manmohan Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan @ Manmohan Agrawal 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

Sharad @ Mota Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Upadhyay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nutan Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhansai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khemraj Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ashfaque Ali @ Chhotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh