Allowed

Sanjay Mandal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2022MCRCA/184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Mandal regarding alleged sexual offences. The court noted the prima facie unnaturality of allegations, similar ages of parties, and a three-day delay in FIR lodging. Bail was granted on a personal bond with conditions to appear for investigation and not tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety, subject to conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Sanjay Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRCA No. 184 of 2022

¶4

Sanjay Mandal S/o Sakal Mandal Aged About 26 Years R/o Railway Quarter N. 344/type 1, W.R.S. Colony Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address C/o Shri Sakal Mandal, Masadhu, Post Manlakha, Police Station Sabaur, Bhagalpur, Bihar, District : Bhagalpur, Bihar ---- Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Respondent

¶8

For the Applicant/s :- Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Advocate For the State :- Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, PL

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶10

Order on Board

¶11

21.07.2022

¶12

This frst anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been fled by the accused/applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 17/2022 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, CG for the ofence punishable under Sections 376, 354, 454 and 511 of the IPC.

¶13

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant lodged a report in the police station Khamtarai, District Raipur against the present applicant that on 05.01.2022 the husband of the prosecutrix namely Alok Das informed to prosecutrix that he is sending the present applicant (who is colleague) for taking tifn box for him. Applicant reached the house of the

¶14

prosecutrix at about 7:30 pm and he started misbehaved to outrage her modesty. The prosecutrix had given information about this entire incident to her husband on next day i.e. on 06.01.2022 afternoon. On the basis of written complaint of prosecutrix, the police registered a case against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that from the FIR itself it would appear that it is a false case and the story has been cooked up in order to implicate the present applicant. He further submits that the age of the applicant as well as victim is about 26 years and it is possible they may have some relationship and from the perusal of the FIR it appears that the incident started sometime in the afternoon and the continued to 7:30 pm therefore, it goes to show that the if any incident would have happened the prosecutrix defnitely could have raised alarm, asked for help to the neighbours and also immediately call her husband. He further submits that incident took place on 05.01.2022 and the report was lodged with a delay of about 3 days i.e. on 08.01.2022 at about 6:05 pm, so therefore, its a total case of false implication and the applicant is aged about 26 years and his custodial interrogation may not be necessary even otherwise he would presence himself for interrogation before the investigating agency. He further submits that the alleged incident took place in the railway quarters which are very small size and attached to many other quarters, if this kind of incident could have happened, the neighbours would

¶15

have defnitely came to know and prosecutrix would have defnitely called her neighbours for help. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court and therefore, application may be allowed.

¶16

Learned State counsel opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that looking to the allegation made in the FIR and the manner in which the ofence is committed, applicant is not entitled for the anticipatory bail as he has torn the clothes of prosecutrix and also he misbehaved with her and the story cannot be disbelieved at this stage simply on the ground that there is delay of about 03 days in lodging the FIR and the custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the nature of allegations which has been narrated in the FIR prima facie appears to be unnatural and also considering the fact that the prosecutrix is major and prosecutrix and applicant appears to be of same age, the delay in the lodging the FIR is about 03 days, this Court fnds it to be a ft case for grant of anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting ofcer, on the following conditions:-

¶18

(a) 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 fact to the Court or to any police officer,

¶19

(b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶20

¶21

(d) he shall appear before the concerned Police Officer/Investigating Officer on 17.08.2022 and will co-operate with the investigation.

¶22

The observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will decide the case on its own merit without being infuenced by any observation made hereinabove. It is made clear that if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the applicant, the State would be free to move for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶25

Pawan

Sanjay Mandal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Mandal 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

Shiv Kumar Sonkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jivanlal Mahara Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nilkanth Pandurang Kolhekar Vs Union Of India

Ritik Raj Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balwant Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Gaein @ Madan Vs State of Chhattisgarh