Chattisgarh High Court
Neeraj Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)MPHT75(CG)
ORDER Fakhruddin, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The applicant is being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506, IPC registered at Police Station, Baradwar, Janjgir Champa.
3. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 7-1-2003 near about 7.30 p.m. when the prosecutrix was going to purchase potato, on the way she was caught hold by the applicant and other co-accused Manoj Agrawal and she was forcibly taken to a vacant plot where she was dashed on the ground and the present applicant and co-accused committed sexual intercourse with her. It is further stated that the accused persons threatened her not to disclose anything about the incident to anyone. The report was lodged by the prosecutrix in the Police Station, Baradwar on 10-1-2003 and a crime number 9/03 was registered. The police reached the spot on the same day, investigated the matter and the statements were recorded seizures of the wearing apparels were made and the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. On 11-1-2003 medical examination report was received, slides taken were sent for chemical examination.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant had applied for grant of anticipatory bail. The same was rejected. Thereafter, he surrendered on 26-12-2003 and since then he is in jail.
5. It is submitted that out of 31 prosecution witnesses, 12 witnesses have been examined. Copies of the depositions have been filed. It is also submitted that the material witness, namely the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), mother of the prosecutrix (P.W. 2), father of the prosecutrix (P.W. 5) and brother of the prosecutrix (P.W. 9) are there, who have also been examined and have not at all supported the prosecution version so far as the applicant/accused Neeraj Agrawal is concerned. It is contended that on the other hand they have exonerated him categorically and besides these witnesses there is no other material witness on this point. It is further contended that the trial would take long time as about 19 witnesses are yet to be examined. It is also contended that the present matter is such where provisions of Section 437(2) of Cr.PC are attracted. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant referred to Para 5 of the deposition of the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), where she has not named the present applicant. He also referred to Para 14 and other paragraphs of the deposition. In Para 14, the prosecutrix has clearly stated that the present applicant Neeraj has not committed intercourse with her. In Para 16, the prosecutrix has stated that the name of the present applicant Neeraj Agrawal has been named in the First Information Report only when it was informed by the friends of her father that he was roaming with other accused Manoj Kumar. In Para 28, the prosecutrix has stated that she has stated the incident to the Doctor that Manoj Kumar has committed rape upon her. Learned Senior Counsel referred to Para 4 of the deposition of P.W. 2, mother of the prosecutrix, wherein she stated that her daughter did not tell regarding Neeraj Agrawal catching hold of her and committing intercourse. Learned Senior Counsel further referred to Para 3 of the deposition of P.W. 5, father of the prosecutrix, to the effect that what was told to him was that Manoj Kumar with one unknown person committed rape upon his daughter, the prosecutrix. He also referred to Para 4 of the deposition. In Para 15, the prosecution witness has clearly stated that since Neeraj Agrawal was roaming with other accused, his name was mentioned. In Para 16, he has categorically stated that Neeraj Agrawal was not involved in the commission of the offence. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the deposition of P.W. 9, brother of the prosecutrix, who is the person reached immediately on the spot. He referred to Para 4 of the deposition, wherein it is stated that he knows Neeraj Agrawal and he was not one who was involved in the case.
7. Learned Counsel for the State is not in a position to dispute the depositions referred to and read out. The copies of entire depositions were supplied. They are on record. He however contended that though the witnesses have turned hostile, but the First Information Report is there, wherein the present applicant has been named.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry and Anr., reported in AIR 1960 SC 391 and submitted that the basic law is that the First Information Report is an information given to a police officer relating to the commission of an offence. It is also an information given by an informant on which the investigation is commenced. It can only be used for the purposes of corroboration or contradiction and is not substantive piece of evidence.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances and evidence of the witnesses referred to above, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant may be released on bail.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant Neeraj Aggrawal be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all the dates of hearing. The bond shall contain in his photograph, crime number and details of movable and immovable property belonging to him. Before accepting the bond, copy of the same shall be handed over to the prosecution. The applicant shall not repeat the offence and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. He shall not leave the country without permission of the Court. He shall also attend the police station concerned on first Sunday of every month between 10.00 A.M. to 12.00 Noon.
11. Before parting, it is made clear that the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, as they are for the purposes of bail only.
Certified copy as per rules.