Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Patwa vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 June, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
SHUBHAM SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.06.11
18:09:20 +0530
2025:CGHC:22951
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 757 of 2025
Mukesh Patwa S/o Dayashankar Alias Devnadan Patwa Aged About
30 Years R/o Vill.- Sulsuli, Thana- Trikunda, Tahsil And District-
Balrampur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Gandhinagar, Distt- Sarguja
(C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocates For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 10/06/2025
1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduld Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ST No.10/2025 whereby the second bail application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS arrested in crime number 85/2025 registered at police station 2 Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 81, 296, 351 (3), 115 (2) of BNS during the course of investigation, after investigation offence under Sections 3 (2)(v) & 3 (1)(w-ii) of SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 have been added was rejected.
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that the prosecutrix had known the appellant since three years & were involved in sexual relationship, on august 2023 the husband of the prosecutrix died and then in due course of time they both made sexual relationship with each other on several occasions and also got married in august 2024 in a temple and then one day the appellant came to the house of the prosecutrix and had a fight with the prosecutrix in which he abused her and threatened to kill her. Based on above, offence was registered against the Appellant.
3. Learned Counsels appearing for the Appellant submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. They further submit that there are contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded U/s 180 of BNSS and U/s 183 of BNSS. There was unexplainable delay of three years in lodging the FIR. They further submit that there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to Schedule Caste. They lastly submit that the appellant is in jail since 02.02.2025 and the appeal is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant. The charge- sheet has been filed and the charges have been framed, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail.
5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
36. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the prosecutrix is 28 years old widow lady having three children. There was a relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix since 3 years. Further considering the sentence period of the appellant and the fact that the appeal is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on other merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set-aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham