Allowed

Tilakram Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2023CRA/1062/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an appeal against bail rejection under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The court noted the prosecutrix had turned hostile in her deposition, denying the offence. Considering five months of custody and lack of risk to evidence, bail was granted on bond.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in like amount.

Tilakram Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 1062 of 2023

¶5

Tilakram Jain, S/o Shri Sampatram Jain, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kokadi, Thana-Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

--- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

--- Respondent

¶10

________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/ Respondent : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

10/08/2023

¶14

This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is arising out of order dated 03.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (ST/SC Act), Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Bail Petition No. 87/2023 by which, the application of the appellant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been rejected. The appellant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 37/2023, registered at Police Station– Pakhanjur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offfence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix who is major lady aged about 28 years lodged a complaint against the appellant stating that on 27.04.2022, the appellant took her and made forcibly sexual intercourse withh her on pretext of marriage. She could not inform the fact to her husband because

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

of fear and thereafter she explained the fact to her husband and lodged FIR against the present appellant on 02.03.2023.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that the charge-sheet has been filed and there is no chance of tampering the evidence by the appellant. He would further submit that the prosecutrix was examined by the prosecution wherein she turned hostile and has stated that no offence has been committed by the appellant. He would further submit that the appellant in jail since 03.03.2023 and about five months have been lapsed, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and would submit that there is serious allegation against the appellant. He would further submit that the prosecutrix has categorically narrated the conduct of the appellant in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and she was subjected to sexual harassment by the appellant, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

From perusal of statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 26.07.2023 before the trial Court wherein she has stated that the appellant has not done anything with her and she has specifically denied that the appellant has committed any forcible sexual intercourse with her.

¶22

Considering the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial Court, the applicant is in jail since 03.03.2023 and five months have already been lapsed and also considering the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no chance of tampering the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

Atrocities) Act, 1989, is allowed. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. He shall appear before the trial court on each and every date given by the said trial court, till disposal of the trial.

¶26

Certified copy as per rules.

¶27

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶28

Arun

Tilakram Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilakram Jain 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

Gopal Krishna Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madhusudan Tulsyan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanju Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hitesh Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankesh Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Mehta Vs State of Chhattisgarh