Gunsagar ( Gunsagar) @ Raju Pasayat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:49362

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1688 of 2024

¶6

1 - Gunsagar ( Gunsagar) @ Raju Pasayat S/o Manohar Pasayat Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Lamkeni, Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

13.12.2024

¶15

This is an appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the SC/ST Act) against the order dated 03/08/2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Mahasamund, in bail application no. 649/2022 whereby the anticipatory bail application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

¶16

The prosecution’s case is that on 23/05/2022, the prosecutrix lodged a written report to the Police with the allegation that, he introduced with the appellant in the year 2016 and they used to talk with each other through

¶17

2

¶18

mobile phone. He proposed her but she refused. In the month of April, 2017, he came to her house and committed rape upon her and given threatening to her that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, she would be killed. In the year 2021, when she was residing in village Basna and working in a cloth shop, the appellant came to her house and again made forceful physical relation with her and again given threatening to her. The act of the appellant was continued till 17/05/2022 and on that day also he made physical relation with her despite her protest. When she informed the appellant that she conceived preganancy of about two months then he abused her in the name of her caste and refused to marry with her. Then she disclosed the incident to her family members and lodged the report. The Police has registered the offence under Section 294, 323, 506, 363, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act in which the appellant apprehending his arrest.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecutrix being a major girl having engage in consensual physical relation without raising any objection and she was being consenting party in the sexual relation with him, no offence of rape is prima facie made out. Their relationship was continued for about five years but she has never raised any objection. It is only when she pressurized for marriage with her, when the appellant refuses the marriage the report has been lodged. Since, there is no prima facie ingredients of rape, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail in the case.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that from the report, it appears that the appellant abused the prosecutrix in the name of her caste and he refused for marriage only on the ground that she belongs to that particular case and threatened her. The appellant sexually exploited the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage which continued for about five years and ultimately he refused for marriage by saying that she belongs to that particular caste. He further submits that the

¶21

3

¶22

bail application of the appellant has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03/08/2022 whereas after about 2 years, he filed the present appeal and in between that period he was absconding, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. He would further submit that the prosecutrix conceived pregnancy from the appellant side and she got medially terminated her pregnancy after obtaining order by this Court which has been passed in WPC No. 2868/2022 vide order dated 04/07/2022 and therefore, looking to the conduct of the appellant and also the nature of allegation against him in the case, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material produced with the appeal.

¶24

Taking into considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the material produced with the appeal, the nature of allegation and the material collected during the investigation, the written complaint and the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, the fact that she conceived pregnancy from the appellant side and she got medically aborted after obtaining the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 2868/2022 vide order dated 04/07/2022, further that the appellant remained absconding for about two years before approaching this Court in the present appeal, I do not find any ground to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail and there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by learned trial Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the appellant.

¶25

In the result, the appeal does not have any merits and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶26

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

sagrika

Gunsagar ( Gunsagar) @ Raju Pasayat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunsagar ( Gunsagar) @ Raju Pasayat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamed Abdul Firoz Vs Smt. Rubina Shabnam

Vishnu Ram @ Sonu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikhil Gurung Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Kumar Kori Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Badriprasad Shriwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh