Allowed

Yagendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2022MCRCA/714/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 CrPC regarding an offence under Section 376(2)(n) and 450 IPC involving sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage, citing delay in FIR lodging and judicial pronouncements.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety and specific conditions imposed.

Yagendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 714 of 2022

¶3

Yogendra Kumar S/o Shri Krishna Sahu, aged about 26 years, R/o Ward No. 4, Naya Dhaba, PS Laalbag, District Rajnandgaon, CG

¶4

---- Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, CG

¶7

--- Respondent

¶8

For Applicant	- Shri Sunil Pillai, Advocate
For State	- Shri Amit Verma, PL
For Objector	- Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate

¶9

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶10

04/08/2022

¶11

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 146/2022 registered at Police Station, Mohan Nagar, District Durg, CG, for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376(2)(n) IPC.

¶12

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the promise of marriage the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix from 13.10.2020 to 12.7.2021.

¶13

Counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution story the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix from 13.10.2020 to 12.7.2021 on the promise of marriage. It so happened that on 13.10.2020 (Tuesday) the applicant went to the house of the prosecutrix and after making false promise of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, on 12.7.2021 (Monday) also the applicant did that act on the same pretext. Prosecutrix is said to be a police constable aged about 23 years and that being a well educated lady she is supposed to understand her well being. He submits that the applicant never made any promise of marriage to the prosecutrix, rather it is she who started threatening and blackmailing the applicant who was working in CISF with posting

¶14

in Tamil Nadu. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is not a case where a false promise of marriage was made from the beginning and therefore, provision of sections 90 IPC and 114 Evidence Act would not come into play because it is not a case of consent obtained by misconception. He further submits that the applicant is a government servant and is ready and willing to comply with all the conditions which may be imposed on him while granting anticipatory bail. He further submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR because according to the case of the prosecution itself the relationship between the two lasted from 13.10.2020 to 12.7.2021 but the report was lodged on 2.5.2022. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand – (2020) 10 SCC 108, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of MH and anor – (2019) 9 SCC 608, Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of UP – 2021 SCC Online SC 181, and Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of MH – Criminal Appeal No. 442/2022 decided on 27.7.2022.

¶15

On the other hand, the State counsel opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that though the prosecutrix is a major lady, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC she has made categorical allegation that the applicant committed sexual intercourse with her on a false promise of marriage right from 13.10.2020 to 12.7.2021 and being so the provisions of Section 90 IPC and 114 Evidence Act clearly stand against the applicant and being so he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. On being asked whether there is any material to show that the applicant made false promise of marriage in the beginning itself, the answer from the State counsel came in negative.

¶16

Counsel for the objector submits that the victim submitted herself to the applicant only because of the promise of marriage made by him. He however could not show as to whether the applicant put her under the false promise right from the beginning.

¶17

Having thus heard counsel for the parties, considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations made against the applicant, the evidence collected so far by the prosecution and keeping in mind the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed . It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with aforesaid crime number, he shall

¶18

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 concerned arresting/investigating ofÏcer, with the following terms and conditions:

¶19

(I) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned investigating ofÏcer as and when required;

¶20

(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 ofÏcer;

¶21

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

¶22

(iv) that he shall appear before the the Investigating OfÏcer/Police OfÏcer on 16.8.2022.

¶23

Violation of any of the conditions will give a right to the State as also the objector to move for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶26

Jyotishi

Yagendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yagendra Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bukki @ Tunni Dhanraj Salunke Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Soni @ Sonu Pardhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gangaram Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh