MUKESH KUMAR BAIDH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISHGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') for grant of bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 54/2012 (Criminal Case No. 1928/2012 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg) registered at Police Station-G.R.P., Bhilai-3, Distt.-Durg (wrongly mentioned as Police Station-Supela, Distt.-Durg) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506B of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is First Bail application and no other application of this nature is pending or decided by this Court or by the Apex Court. The application is supported by an affidavit of Smt. Amarkala Baidh, mother of the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that present applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in crime in question, he is in custody since 19.06.2012. Even as per case of prosecution on 25.04.2012 when husband of the prosecutrix was not present in his house, applicant has committed rape with the prosecutrix and has also threaten her. On account of fear she did not disclosed the incident to any other person on same day, but, as per statements of other witnesses she has disclosed the incident to other neighbours on 26.04.2012. But reason best known to the prosecutrix she has lodged FIR on 14.05.2012 after lapse of more than 20 days. She is married woman. As per FIR even she has not disclosed the incident to her husband, she has lodged FIR at the instance of one Dr. Ram Sahu and his wife Deepmala Sahu.