-1-

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRCA No. 108 of 2018

Devi Dayal Patel S/o Shri Lalan Singh Patel, aged about 24 years,
R/o village Ghondgha, P.O. Revti, P.S. Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur,
District Surajpur (C.G.).
—- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gandhinagar, District
Surguja (C.G.).
—- Respondent

For Applicant : Shri A.K.Prasad, Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Dy.G.A.

Hon’ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
09/04/2018

1. Present is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking
for anticipatory bail to the applicant apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No. 06/2017 registered at Police Station
Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 306, 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(5)
3(2)(V-a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The allegation against the present applicant as per the prosecution
case is that, the present applicant is said to have on the pretext of
marriage had a physical relationship with the deceased – Mini Toppo
and finally ditched the prosecutrix and refused to marry her as a
result of which she consumed certain medicinal drugs on 10/03/2016
on account of which she later on succumbed on 12/03/2016.

3. Initially, after the merg investigation an offence under Section 306 of
IPC was levelled against the present applicant and an F.I.R. was
lodged on 09/01/2017, only for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
The present applicant had obtained bail from the trial Court on
30/03/2017.

4. Lateron the police authorities had recorded the statements of few
witnesses i.e. the sister in law of the deceased, the mother of the
-2-

deceased and few more statements in the month of December-2017
and pursuant to the statement of these witnesses, the offence under
Sections 376(2)(n) 417 of IPC and the offence under Sections 3(2)
(5) 3(2)(V-a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also charged.

5. The counsel for the applicant submits that, so far as the offence
under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, he had already been granted
bail by the trial Court. Section 417 of IPC levelled against the present
applicant is a bailable offence. That so far as the offence under
Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 3(2)(5) 3(2)(V-a) of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 is concerned, the same has been charged only on the basis of
the statements of the relatives of the deceased which was recorded
after one year and 9 months from the date the deceased had died
and after about 1 year from the date the F.I.R. was lodged. Thus, it
appears that the statements so made by these persons becomes
doubtful in itself. He further submits that, the deceased was alive
between 10/03/2016 to 12/03/2016 and during this period, the police
authorities nor the hospital authorities had recorded any statement
with which the allegation of rape or the offence under the SC/ST Act
could have been attracted against the present applicant and thus
prayed for granting the benefit of Anticipatory Bail to the applicant.

6. The State counsel on the contrary opposing the appeal submits that
it is a case where the present applicant on the pretext of marriage is
said to have had a physical relationship with the prosecutrix for a
considerable period of time. In between, he is also said to have
obtained huge amount of monetary aid and the present applicant
later on has refused to marry the prosecutrix and is said to have
married some other person which led her to commit suicide and thus
prayed for rejection of bail application.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly taking note of the fact that, the family members of the
deceased have not made any complaint against the present
applicant from the date of incident till their statement for the first time
was recorded with the police authorities in December-2017, the
offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and offence under SC/ST Act
-3-

which was levelled against the present applicant was not
sustainable. Moreover except for the oral statements made by the
witnesses, there is no evidence whatsoever collected or which have
been gathered with which the allegation of 376(2)(n) of IPC or for
that matter the offence under SC/ST Act could prima-facie be
established from the contents of the case diary.

8. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the opinion that prima-facie a strong case for grant of
Anticipatory Bail has been made out.

9. Accordingly, the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest of the present Applicant in
connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned
arresting/investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case
may be, with the following terms and conditions:

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and
when required;

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal
of the trial.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Sumit