Order On Board

24/01/2023 Heard.

1. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.141/2022 registered at Police Station – Shankargarh, District – Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 420, 376 (2) (<) and later under Section 450 of IPC.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant, on the pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and obtained money from her, thereby committed the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case of totally false implication. The applicant has not committed any offence. He submits that the parents of the prosecutrix used to run a school and on a request made by them, a school bus was financed in the name of applicant and it was being operated for the purposes of picking the school kids . Thereafter, during the Covid pandemic, the school was closed and the applicant was asked to deposit the finance amount of the bus. He submits that when it was refused as a good gesture, the applicant helped the parents of the prosecutrix in financing the bus in his name but now, as he could not bring the payment of the transit amount, false report has been lodged. It is submitted that threatning was also given by the family members of the prosecutrix and various reports indicating this fact was also made to the police officials by the applicant. Alternatively, he submits, even assuming that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse on false pretext of marriage but looking to the report, their relationship started in the month of January, 2018 and continued till lodging of the FIR i.e. in the month of October, 2022. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is major lady of about 24 years and she is able to understand her well being. It cannot be, at this stage, attributed that there was false pretext of marriage for almost 4 years as the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm or made any complaint. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and anr. (2019) 9 SCC 608 and submits that failure to keep the promise in the year 2022 made in the year 2018 would not attract that there was misrepresentation of marriage from the very inception. It is submitted that charge sheet has been filed, the applicant is in jail since 13/10/2022 and looking to the entire facts and circumstances, the application may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that there are specific allegations leveled against the present applicant with regard to false implication and consent on false pretext of marriage would be considered at the time of trial. Therefore, the application may be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, evidence collected, period of alleged relationship, detention period and that trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the condition that -

a) He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

b) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c) He shall not meet any prosecution witnesses till conclusion of trial.

It is made clear that if any of the conditions is violated by the applicant and brought to the notice of the trial Court, learned trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

Certified copy as per rules.