Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 176 (CHH)

VINOD KUJUR v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-06-19

Prashant Kumar Mishra

body2013
ORAL ORDER 1. The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 87/2012 registered in Police Station: Chhal, District Raigarh for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 493 of the IPC. 2. The prosecutrix lodged a written complaint against the applicant, a police constable, alleging that she was sexually exploited by the applicant and when she carried pregnancy, he got her aborted on promise to marry and later on, when she threatened to lodge report, the applicant threatened her that he would kill her and her family members. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that the applicant continued sexual exploitation on promise to marry. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecutrix aged about 30 years, being employed as Shiksha Karmi, was a consenting party and the FIR having been delayed, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail on submission that the applicant has sexually exploited the prosecutrix on promise to marry, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the objector would submit that during their relationship, when the prosecutrix became pregnant, the applicant made her to abort the child on assurance that he would marry her after abortion. She would further submit that the applicant being a constable has exerted undue influence on the investigating authority and it is for this reason, FIR was registered after 2 years i.e. in September, 2012 despite the fact that a complaint (Annexure-C/1) was-made to the Superintendent of Police in November, 2010. It is also submitted that the applicant is influencing and harassing the prosecutrix and is pressurizing her to withdraw the complaint, as substantiated in complaint (Annexure-C/3) moved before the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh on 10.10.2012. 6. On perusal of the case diary, it would appear that the applicant sexually exploited the prosecutrix on promise to marry and aborted the child when she informed that she is carrying pregnancy. It is also mentioned in the complaints (Annexure-C/1 & C/3) that the applicant was pressurizing the prosecutrix for withdrawing the complaint during the period of 2 years when despite complaint, FIR was not registered. 7. It is also mentioned in the complaints (Annexure-C/1 & C/3) that the applicant was pressurizing the prosecutrix for withdrawing the complaint during the period of 2 years when despite complaint, FIR was not registered. 7. Considering the manner in which the applicant, a police constable, has sexually exploited the girl and has been threatening her to withdraw the complaint, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Application Rejected.