Chattisgarh High Court
Khileshwar Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 December, 2023
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No.7658 of 2023
• Khileshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Ghanaram Sahu Aged About
33 Years R/o Village And Post Kandel, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant (In jail)
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Police Station Ganj,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
....Non-applicant
For Applicants : Mr. BP Singh, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyer
For Objector : Mr. Roop Ram Nayak, Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
07.12.2023
1.This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who is in custody since 7.9.2023 in connection with Crime No.197/2023 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n), 377 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 3.6.2023 the victim lodged written report in concerned police station mentioning that applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her against her wish, initially on 17.12.2022, and promised that he will perform marriage with her within two days, therefore, she did not lodge report of incident. 2 Thereafter, applicant further committed sexual intercourse as also unnatural sex with her. Based on written report, aforementioned crime was registered against applicant and he was arrested on 7.9.2023.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that absolutely false allegations are levelled against applicant. Victim is a major lady aged about 33 years and working as Software Engineer in a private company, as stated by her in statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. Sexual intercourse, if any, between the applicant and the victim was consensual and applicant never extended any promise of marriage. Applicant is in custody since 7.9.2023, hence, he may be released on regular bail.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for Objector opposes submissions made by learned counsel for applicant and submits that serious allegations have been levelled against applicant in written report as also in the statements recorded under Sections 161 &164 CrPC and therefore, he is not entitled for benefit of regular bail.
5. Learned counsel for the Objector also submits that applicant has threatened the victim for dire consequence if she would marry with some other boy.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, age of victim as also applicant, material 3 collected by prosecution, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned on the conditions that;
a) he shall appear before the trial Court concerned regularly on each and every date unless exempted from appearance.
b) he shall not, in any manner, tamper with prosecution witnesses.
c) if he is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail. Certified copy as per rules.
sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-