1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 1091 of 2021

Omprakash Bargah S/o Late Bakas Bargah Aged About 22 Years R/o

Village Kanaknagar, Police Station Pratappur, Tahsil Pratappur,

District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police of

Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---

Respondent

CRA No. 1093 of 2021

Muneshwar S/o Shobhan Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village

Silfili, P.S. Pratappur, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur

(Chhattisgarh). --- Appellant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police of

Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).

--- Respondent

For the applicants

: Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.

For the Respondent

: Mr. Raghavendra Verma, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

31

.01.2022

1. Cr.A.No.1093/2021 is fled by appellant Muneshwar against the order

dated 26.08.2021 and Cr.A. No.1091/2021 is filed by Omprakash

Bargah against the order dated 08.09.2021 whereby the applications

filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been

rejected by the Special Judge, Surajpur. Since both the appeals are

relating to same Crime No.153/2020 registered at P.S. Pratappur,

Distt. Surajpur for the offence punishable under section 376 (2-N),

313 read with section 34, 315/34, 506 of IPC and sections 3(2)(v) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, they are decided by this common order.

2

2. As per the prosecution case, on 10.12.2019 appellant Om Prakash on

the pretext of marriage took the prosecutrix to the forest and forcibly

committed rape. Thereafter, the other accused Muneshwar

blackmailed the prosecutrix and committed forcible sexual

intercourse. Subsequently when the prosecutrix became pregnant,

initially Muneshwar has brought certain Tablet to abort the

pregnancy, but she denied to consume such tablet. Thereafter, after

a week Omprakash administered certain herbs on her to abort the

pregnancy and subsequently Omprakash refused to marry the

prosecutrix after abortion.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecutrix is a

major lady of 20 years, she of her own developed relations with

Omprakash and wild allegations have been levelled against

Muneshwar, therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail of appellants and

read out the statement of prosecutrix.

5. Having considered the statement of prosecutrix and the nature of

allegations levelled against both the appellants, I am not inclined to

allow these appeals. Accordingly, they are rejected.

Sd/-

GOUTAM BHADURI

JUDGE

Rao