Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 216 (CHH)

MUKESH KUMAR BAIDH v. STATE OF C. G.

2012-08-24

T.P.SHARMA

body2012
ORDER 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. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application and submits present applicant has committed aforesaid offence. Prosecution has collected sufficient material against the applicant. 6. On due consideration material collected on behalf of prosecution, delay in lodging FIR, not disclosing the incident to her husband although as per statements she has disclosed the incident to other neighbours instead of her husband, but, has lodged FIR, I am of the view that it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. It is therefore, directed that if the applicant furnishes a personal bond of Rs. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. It is therefore, directed that if the applicant furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg for his regular appearance before the said Court, he be released on bail. 8. At the time of accepting bail bond, the Court concerned shall minutely verify that whether any bail application has been decided previously by the High Court or the Supreme Court and in case the Court finds that previous bail application has been decided, the order, shall automatically stand cancelled. The Court concerned shall also submit compliance report within 15 days of its compliance to the Registry of this Court. Bail Granted.