Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 95 of 2025 Ravi Yadav S/o Tula Ram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Baghnikapa, Tehsil Mungeli P.S. Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.) versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh through The Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.01.2025 Order on Board 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 368/2024 registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) (M) and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution's story, in brief is that on 26.09.2024, the victim herself went to the police station and submitted a written application, stating that the accused, Ravi Yadav, used to call her repeatedly, asking her to talk to him. When the victim refused, the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.09 10:55:07 +0530 2 accused called her from another number, saying, “I cannot live without you.” Subsequently, for six months, the accused and the victim spoke over the phone. On 12.05.2024, the accused allegedly came to the victim’s house at night, administered intoxicating drugs to her, and established physical relations with her while she was unconscious. The next morning, when the victim regained consciousness and protested, the accused promised to marry her. Concealing the fact that he was already married, the accused then allegedly married the victim in Ratanpur on 12.06.2024. Afterward, both lived together as husband and wife. However, after some time, the accused left the victim and disappeared. Based on the victim’s written complaint, Crime No. 368/24 under Sections 376(2)(M) and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against the appliant at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the victim is a married woman and she has 03 children. The victim is divorced from her husband and at present the victim lives in a rented house in Daupara, Mungeli and does sewing work. He further submits that during that time she got acquainted with the applicant/accused and she used to talk after which a love relationship developed between them. He further submits that it is clear from the charge-sheet and the written complaint letter of the victim that there is a long gap of 138 days between the date of the incident and the FIR. He further submits that the victim and the applicant/accused have got married and at 3 present the victim wants to live a married life with the applicant and the victim did not raise any objection for commission of aforesaid offence during the course of incident. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 27.09.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant/accused forcefully committed sexually intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and from the perusal of statement of victim recorded, it appears that the victim who is a married woman and she has 03 children having a consensual relationship with the applicant and she was a consenting party and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the present applicant is in jail since 27.09.2024 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Ravi Yadav, involved in Crime No. 368/2024 4 registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(M) and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan