Allowed

Dharmendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jan 2023MCRCA/742/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 CrPC by Dharmendra Singh, who apprehended arrest for offences involving eve-teasing and unnatural sex. The court found it a fit case to grant bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and specific undertakings.

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 742 of 2022

¶5

Dharmendra Singh, aged about 29 year (age not mentione din order sheet ) adopted son of Raja Surendra Bahadur Singh, R/o Pila Mahal, Ward No.08, Sakti, P.S. & Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakti, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

¶8

For Applicant	:	Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent.	:	Mr. Anil Tripathi, P.L.
For Objector	:	Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate

¶9

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶10

Order on Board

¶11

20/01/2023

¶12

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.17/2022 registered at Police Station – Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 450, 354, 377 of Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Allegation against the present applicant is that he entered the room of prosecutrix, used criminal force and tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant by doing unnatural sex.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Learned counsel referring to Annexure A/2, order dated 10.05.2021 and 12.05.2021 submits that civil disputes regarding adoption are pending before the Court below and the present case is squarely cover within the ambit of Civil dispute but criminal colour has been

¶15

¶16

given by the complainant by lodging false FIR. Learned counsel referring to complaint dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure A/5) submits that the alleged incident took place 09.01.2022 and an inquiry in this regard was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police and in inquiry report (Annexure A/6), after seeing CCTV footage, it was specifically held that the applicant, on the date of incident, was not seen climbing the staircase from 06.00 pm to 10.00 pm and it was further held by the inquiry officer that no crime has been committed by the applicant. Learned counsel also submits that he has also filed CCTV footage along with covering memo of the alleged crime followed by FSL report, wherein it is clear that prosecutrix was not seen with torn clothes but in the FIR prosecutrix said that the applicant torn her clothes and tried to outrage her modesty. Therefore, considering all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶17

Counsel for the State however opposes the application for anticipatory bail.

¶18

Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the Objector vehemently opposed the applicant and submits that so far as CCTV footage filed by the applicant is concerned, it is not related to the alleged crime in question and the main recording of CCTV footage has been deleted by the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that present is not a civil dispute and the FIR is not in that regard. He also submits that by relying upon the documents so filed by the applicant, the applicant is trying to portrait that present is a civil dispute and the same has no relevance in the matter. He also submits that there is no variation in the 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant. The applicant has extended life threat to the complainant. He is highly influential

¶19

¶20

person and if the anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, there is every likelihood of tampering the evidence by him. Therefore, the applicant may not be granted anticipatory bail.

¶21

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the nature of allegation against the applicant and quality of evidence, without commenting anything on merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶22

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 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 officer or the court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

¶23

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation/medical examination before the concerned investigating officer as and when required;

¶24

(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 as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

Sd/(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶28

pkd

Dharmendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Singh 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

Smt. Shanti Devi Singh Vs Nandkumar

Giriraj Solvent Ex. Pvt. Limited (Ganpati Solvent Ex. Pvt. Limited) Vs Premchand Moolchand Agrawal

Mukesh Kumar Chandrakar Vs Smt. Dipti Chandrakar

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank and Ors.

Gurjinder Pal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukhlal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh