Ramanand Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The accused/appellant who is in custody since 22.11.2021 has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ ST Act”) for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.109/2020 registered at Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 376 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (11) and 3(2) (V) of the SC/ST Act.

Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the prosecutrix has relationship with the appellant prior to her marriage with one Chamalal Dhurv which was solemnized on 04.05.2020. It is alleged that even after the marriage, the appellant compelled the prosecutrix to continue their relationship and pressurized her by showing knife and when the prosecutrix could not bear his torture, she lodged an FIR.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused/appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that appellant and the prosecutrix are consenting party and even the proseuctrix come from Gariyaband to Raipur with the appellant on his motorcycle. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the objector puts forth his vehement opposition to the prayer for bail and submits that the appellant had put fear over the prosecutrix that he will disclose the husband about their prior relationship and also threatened to continue their relationship even after the marriage. In such circumstances the FIR has been lodged. Therefore, the appellant’s prayer for bail is liable to be rejected.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation and looking to the fact that the appellant even after the marriage of the prosecutrix has harassed the prosecutrix and the manner in which the incident took place, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at this stage.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, at the request of learned counsel for the appellant, liberty to revive the application after examination of the prosecutrix, is granted to the appellant.