PRADIPKUMAR @ PAPPUBHAI RAMSAMUJ JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed under Sec. 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.11196026210660 of 2021 with Raopura Police Station, Vadodara City for the alleged offence punishable under Ss. 376(2)(n), 406, 114, 294(b) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of 'the Act ' praying for regular bail post submission of chargesheet.

(2.) Mr. Dhruv K. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that initially the appellant had preferred an Appeal praying for an order of anticipatory bail and despite pendency of it before this Court, the appellant came to be arrested, and therefore, it was rendered infructuous. He has further submitted that thereafter the appellant preferred an application for regular bail, which came to be rejected by the trial Court, and therefore, he has preferred the present Appeal praying for an order of regular bail. However, he further submitted that even during pendency of this Appeal, chargesheet has come to be filed so as to again frustrate the attempt on a spacious plea that now charge-sheet is filed, and therefore, he should be relegated to the trial Court for an order of regular bail. He has further submitted that this be treated as Appeal praying for regular bail post submission of chargesheet.

(3.) Drawing attention of the Court to the FIR, it is submitted that the allegations against the appellant pertains to an offence under Sec. 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offence of Indian Penal Code levelled by respondent no.2 - first informant, who claims to be wife of the present appellant in her own FIR. He has further submitted that out of the relationship between the appellant and the first informant, a child is also born. It is submitted that the first informant is aged about 34 years and she knows the relations and the nature of it. It is further submitted that, as narrated in the FIR itself, since 2015 she was knowing about the marital status of the appellant and despite that she had relations with the appellant and claims that under false promise of marriage she entered into relationship with the appellant, which cannot be believed, and therefore, he has submitted that the appellant be released on regular bail post submission of charge-sheet.