Chattisgarh High Court
Shubham Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 October, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8103 of 2021
Shubham Singh S/o Satyendra Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village And Post Peero, Distt. Bhojpur (Bihar), District : Bhojpur, Bihar
---- Applicant.
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Lalbag, Distt.
Rajnandgaon , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---
Respondent
For the Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 29.10.2021
1. This is the first bail application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No.200/2021 of Police Station Lalbag, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the offences punishable u/s 384, 354, 376(2)(n) of IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix had gone to Bihar along with her colleagues in the year 2020 to participate in dance programes and during this period, she came into contact with the present applicant. It is alleged that the present applicant had taken some obscene photographs of prosecutrix while she was in the bath room and subsequently, on that basis, she was subjected to forcible rape. Thereafter, Rs. 3 lakhs was demanded from her and further a threat was extended that the obscene photographs/video would be made viral, thereby the applicant has committed offence of rape.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident took place between 13.07.2020 and 20.05.2021 and the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she was in the company of the present 2 applicant. He further submits that no seizure of obscene photographs has been made and only on bald statement, the applicant has been inculpated and the charge sheet has been filed against him.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application.
5. Perused the statement of prosecutrix. Considering her statement, at this stage, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, it is rejected. However, the applicant shall be at liberty to repeat the prayer after examination of the prosecutrix.
Sd/-
GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao