SHRINIVAS RAO NAIDU Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 4 38 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 Arunendra Kumar Sharma outraged the modesty of the complainant and sexually harassed her, 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 day is very much crowded by presence of 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 including on 02.08.2014 by physically touching her body, but the First Information Report has been lodged only on 26.09.2014 after unexplained and inordinate delay which creates grave doubt on truthfulness of prosecution version. Shri Tripathi would further submit that even after 02.08.2014, the complainant 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, and also submit that he is holding the responsible post of Section Officer and the case of prosecution is not supported by any medical evidence and if he is granted anticipatory bail, he is not likely to flee from justice, and he has no criminal antecedents and therefore, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.