VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Sections 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (henceforth 'the PoA Act') against the order dated 24.7.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Bail Application No.956 of 2020 relating to Crime No.301 of 2020 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the PoA Act. By the impugned order, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail application moved by the Appellant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that age of the prosecutrix is above 30 years. The Appellant is also aged about 45 years. He is working as a Traffic Constable and is a married person having wife and three children. On 2.7.2020, the prosecutrix made a written complaint against the Appellant. It is alleged that for the last 12 years the prosecutrix is living in Tifra, Bilaspur in a rented house and is working with one Panchvati Herbal Company. In the year 2016, a love relationship developed between her and the Appellant. At that time, the Appellant had told her that he was a divorcee and his two children were residing separately with their mother and on the false pretext of marriage the Appellant developed physical relationship with her and this relationship continued upto the year 2018. Thereafter, the prosecutrix went to the house of the Appellant where she found that the wife and the children of the Appellant were residing at the house of the Appellant. When the prosecutrix told to the wife of the Appellant about her relationship with the Appellant then the wife of the Appellant and his daughter committed marpeet with the prosecutrix. On this, she returned from there and ended her relationship with the Appellant. It is further alleged that 6 months thereafter, the Appellant gave her a telephonic call and apologised for his mistake and assuring her that he will soon obtain a divorce from his wife and on this pretext he again developed physical relationship with her. Finally, on 29.6.2020, the Appellant ended his relationship with the prosecutrix and he also refused to marry her and on giving him phone call by the prosecutrix he threatened her of life. On the basis of the said written complaint of the prosecutrix, First Information Report has been registered against the Appellant. Apprehending his arrest, the Appellant moved an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.7.2020. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Shri Umakant Singh Chandel, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is innocent. The prosecutrix is a married woman and she is residing separately from her husband without giving him divorce. The Appellant is also a married person having wife and three children and is residing with them together. Since both the Appellant and the prosecutrix are married persons and despite the fact that the prosecutrix is aware since beginning that the Appellant is a married person she developed physical relationship with the Appellant, the physical relationship would have been developed between them on the pretext of marriage is prima facie not established. Since prima facie offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the Appellant, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the PoA Act is also not made out. Thus, the bar created under Section 18 of the PoA Act would not apply to the instant case. Despite there being these facts, the Trial Court has wrongly rejected the bail application of the Appellant. Thus, it was prayed that the Appellant may be admitted to the benefit of anticipatory bail.