Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 June, 2025
1
Digitally
A signed by
ANNAJEE A
RAO ANNAJEE
RAO
2025:CGHC:23077
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 773 of 2025
1 - Ajay Yadav S/o Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o
Nilkanthpur Ps Ramchandrapur District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh ... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Ramchandrapur
District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent
For the appellant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Panel Lawyer
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
11/06/2025
1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for
grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in Crime No.
2
25/2024 registered at P.S. Ramchandrapur for the offence punishable
under Sections 450, 506(b), 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)
of the Act, 1989.
2. By impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned trial
Court Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Special Trial (Atrocities) No. 16/2024
(State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Ajay Yadav), the application filed by the
applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been
challenged in this appeal.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.06.2024 the present
applicant has entered into the house of prosecutrix and committed rape
on her by threatening to her life thereby offence has been committed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix is a
widow lady of aged about 35 years having two children of 17 years and
14 years and she was a consenting party. He refers to the statement of
prosecutrix especially paras 32, 34 & 35 of cross-examination and
submits that there was illicit relationship between the prosecutrix and
the appellant, therefore, no offence is made against the appellant. He
submits that the appellant is in jail since 23.06.2024 and looking to his
custody period, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of
bail and supports the order of the trial Court.
6. The victim has appeared through VC and stated that she does not
have objection for grant of bail to the appellant.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents available on record.
3
8. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the
prosecutrix is a widow lady aged about 35 years having two grown-up
children as also considering the fact that the statement of victim was
recorded wherein she admits the relationship between her and the
appellant for a considerable period and further looking to the custody
period of the appellant and since there is no immediate possibility of
disposal of trial, without further commenting upon the merits of the
case, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
11.03.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set aside.
10. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his
executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the
like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before
the said Court as and when directed.
Cc as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao
[ad_1]
Source link