ARUNENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 289/2014, registered in Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, for commission of offence punishable under Section 354-A r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant alongwith co-accused Shrinivas Rao Naidu, from September, 2013, to 12.09.2014 sexually harassed the complainant, and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

(3.) Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that present applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case as the place of incident is said to be the office of Additional Registrar (Judicial) which, usually on the working days is very much crowded by the lawyers and their clerks and as such the prosecution story appears to be improbable and fabricated. He would further submit that complainant is said to be sexually harassed by the applicant from the month of September, 2013, to 12.09.2014, but the First Information Report has been lodged on 26.09.2014 after unexplained and inordinate delay which creates grave doubts on truthfulness of prosecution version. Shri Tripathi would further submit that the complainant thereafter continuously and regularly worked in the office and did not make any complaint to any of the higher authorities which goes to show that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He would also submit that present applicant is working as a Assistant Grade II in the same department and against the present applicant, only-allegation is of forcing the complainant to see pornography in cell phone & computer and also offered a ladies purse to her and if he is granted anticipatory bail, he is not likely to flee from justice, and therefore, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.