1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4648 of 2024
Amar Pankaj @ Renu S/o Nakul Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Jamgahan, P.S. Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh
(C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Bhatgaon
District Saragnarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)
---- Non-Applicant
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
: Mr. Aishwarya Kumar, Advocate.
For Applicants
For Non-Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
28.06.2024
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who
has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 85/2024 registered at
Police Station Bhatgaon District Saragnarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the
offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 294, 323, 506 of the
IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the genesis of the present
cause lies on the FIR bearing No. 85/2024 registered before the PS
Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, (C.G). It is alleged that the
herein applicant on 04.03.2024 went inside the home of Prosecutrix
and threatened her to stay silent and committed Rape. After that day he
would visit the Prosecutrix many times and commit rape with the same
2
threat, i.e on 24.03.2024, 30.03.2024. The Prosecutrix told her
husband about this and after 5 days i.e on 05.04.2024 filed an F.I.R.
Consequently, the present First Information Report has been lodged
against the present Applicant u/s 376(2)(N), 294, 323, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation against applicant is
utterly baseless and stems from the fertile imagination of the
prosecution. It is asserted that prosecution has conveniently ignored
the contradiction in the story. The present case is nothing but a
fabricated case wherein the Applicants herein, being innocent, dragged
into unnecessary litigation. The contents of the impugned complaint
makes it evident that the complainant has made allegations which don't
make any sense, as she was already in a consentual relationship. He
later submits that the applicant was in fact in a consensual relationship
with the Prosecutrix and Applicant had presented their whatsapp chats
wherein the Prosecutrix can be seen explicitly inviting him over on
those alleged days and other days, the same chats are explicit in
nature and also include intimate pictures of Prosecutrix sent voluntarily.
He lastly submits that the applicant in jail since 18.05.2024, the
conclusion of the trial may take some time, hence he prays to release
the applicant on bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the
bail application of the applicant and submits that as per the submission
made by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C,
the present applicant has exploited the victim on various occasions.
3
Hence, the bail application of the applicant is also liable to be
dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, and from perusal of the statement of
the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it transpires that the victim is a
married women and her husband was not keeping well, and the
applicant herein is a friend of the husband of the victim and has
exploited the victim and established forceful physical relationship with
her on various occasions, hence, this Court is of the opinion that it is
not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Amar Pankaj @
Renu, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., involved in Crime No.
85/2024 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon District Saragnarh-
Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N),
294, 323, 506 of the IPC, is rejected.
8. The trial Court shall conclude the trial as early as possible preferably
within a period of six months in accordance with law, if there is no any
legal impediment.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Manpreet