Allowed

Laxman Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2023MCRCA/593/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court distinguished a Supreme Court precedent based on specific factual variations regarding the dissolution of a prior marriage and granted bail after imposing conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; applicant directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and appear before trial court.

Laxman Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 593 of 2023

¶5

Laxman Prasad S/o Shri Heera Sai, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Lodhi,

¶6

Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramaanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramaanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Non-applicants

¶11

For Applicant – Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant – Mr. Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate for the objector/complainant.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶13

08-09-2023

¶14

This application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.66/2023 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramaanujganj (Chhattisgarh) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

¶15

The facts of the present case are that on 21.04.2023 the victim lodged a written report to the effect that a proposal of marriage was given by the applicant and his family members at Village Karra in the house of the victim about 1 and ½ years ago and thereafter, the applicant used to visit her house and maintain sexual relationship. But after 1 and ½ years he refused to marry and therefore, the FIR was lodged.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a Government servant working on the post of Constable and a written complaint was made on 16.04.2023 to the effect that though the victim was not ready to marry the applicant however when the applicant took a decision to marry another lady she threatened her to implicate him in a false case. He would further submit that wife of the applicant had expired in the year 2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic and to take care of the children he wanted to marry, but the

¶17

-2-

¶18

victim herself could not produce certificate of dissolution of her former marriage, therefore, the proposal of marriage could not be materialized. He would submit that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the objector would oppose. They would submit that for 1 and ½ years continuously the applicant sexually assaulted the victim and thereafter, refused to marry her. Mr. D.N. Prajapati would submit that the marriage of the victim was already dissolved according to the customs and there was no need for the victim to obtain certificate or decree in this regard and this fact was within the knowledge of the applicant, but deliberately and intentionally he refused to marry and thus he has committed the offence and his application deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

5 . Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶21

6 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ansaar Mohammad Vs.

¶22

State of Rajasthan and another , reported in 2022(4) C.G.L.J. 253 (SC) held that:-

¶23

“In view of the said fact, the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.”

¶24

Further, in the present case, the applicant was ready to marry the victim and he approached the complainant along with his parents, but the marriage between the victim and her former husband was not dissolved, therefore, the marriage could not be solemnized. Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant and the victim maintained the consensual relationship for more than 1 and ½ years and thereafter, the FIR has been lodged, in the opinion of this Court it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the

¶26

-3-

¶27

Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer, he shall be released on bail on following conditions:-

¶28

(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation before

¶29

the investigating officer as and when required;

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observation made hereinabove.

¶34

I.A.No.1/2023, application for grant of Ad-interim bail is also disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Aadil

Laxman Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Prasad 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

M/S Gurushree Buildcon Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (1)

M/S Gurushree Industries Private Limited, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Gurushree Minerals Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Ashok Kumar Setthi @ Avinash Setthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakshmi Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vimal Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh