Raipur (C.G.) (Correct Particulars Of v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. New Rajendra Nagar Raipur District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1486 of 2024 Shrikant Shrivastava S/o Harishankar Shrivastava Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Jai Maa Durga Shop Dawda Colony Ps Tikrapara Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) (Correct Particulars Of Applicant) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. New Rajendra Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant
Legal Reasoning
For applicant :Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Objector :Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.01.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 451/2024 registered at Police Station – New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 05.12.2024, the complainant lodged an FIR before the concerned police station against the applicant, stating therein that she lives in a rented house in Dundha, 2 Sejbahar, Raipur, with her friend. From May 29, 2024, to August 2024, she worked in property dealing at Shashwat Builders, Pachpedi Naka. During this time, she called various mobile numbers related to properties, including Shrikant Shrivastava, who showed interest in purchasing a property. They started discussing the property and Shrikant asked for her address, which she provided. He said he would visit her home, but she declined. Despite this, he started lurking around her house. One evening, around 9:00 pm, Shrikant visited her home and despite her initial reluctance, he entered and asked for tea and water. After consuming them, he left but continued to visit and express his love for her, stating his desire to marry her. The complainant repeatedly declined. On August 2, 2024, around 9:00-10:00 pm, Shrikant visited her home again and forcibly established physical relations, and silenced her by covering her mouth. Despite her protests, he continued to exploit her physically, promising marriage. Shrikant continued to establish physical relations with the complainant until October 1, 2024, repeatedly promising marriage but failing to fulfill his commitment. Therefore, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed the alleged crime. The complainant telephonically contacted the present applicant for sale of properties and thereafter they entered into consensual relationship, later on when the relationship turned sour the complainant started to threaten the present applicant to rope him in false criminal case. 3 Thus, the case at present is just a relationship which ended in a bad way after which the complainant decided to resort to filing of false criminal case. He further submits that the applicant and the complainant belong to a different community and it was in-fact the complainant who could not persuade her family for the marriage. Thus, the prospect of marriage could not materialize because the complainant avoided to involve her family, despite repeated request from the applicant and his family members. He further submits that when the complainant started to threaten the applicant to file false criminal case, the applicant had filed a complaint with respect to the threatening given by the complainant. The complainant visited the house of the applicant on 21.10.2024 and when the mother of the applicant requested to come with her family members the complainant denied to involve her family members and started to threaten the mother of the applicant. The complainant and the applicant entered into an agreement that they would persuade their families and the complainant would arrange a meeting of the applicant with her mother but this promise was never fulfilled by the complainant herself and instead she had started to threaten the applicant and his family members and also demanded money. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that after the written agreement, the complaint did not introduce the applicant with her mother as promised and instead started to demand for marriage without insisting to introduce her own family for entering into talks of marriage. Also, the applicant now discovered that the complainant had relation with other persons which when confronted 4 by the applicant the complainant started to threaten the applicant and his family members. Under these circumstances, the mother of the applicant made another compliant before the Superientendent of Police Raipur against these threats. The facts and circumstances of the present matter would lead to only one fact that the applicant is himself victim of false case wherein invoking criminal law against men on allegations of rape on the false pretext of marriage after a consensual relationship turned sour. The mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State as well as objector, appearing for the complainant opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits the fact that the complainant had telephonically contacted the present applicant to offer properties leading to conversation and friendship between them. Thereafter the applicant had shown interest in the complainant and had made sexual relation with the complainant on the pretext of marriage. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the victim is a major girl aged about 28 years, involved in physical 5 relationship with the applicant and when their relationship could not be materialized, she lodged an FIR against the applicant and also considering the fact that the applicant has already been granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 20.12.2024, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Shrikant Shrivastava, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on the following conditions:- (a) He 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal