Shriyank Chandrakar VsState Of Chhattisgarh

This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth ‘the SC/ST Act’) against the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST ACT, Durg, District Durg for grant of anticipatory bail to the Appellant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.1228/2022 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC as also under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix, a 21 year old lady had lodged FIR dated 03.12.2022 at PS Supela, District Durg alleging that she is doing her online MBBS course from Philipines country and on 29.08.2022, when she had gone to the friend’s house of one Bhupesh Mandavi along with the present Appellant at Smriti Nagar to attend a party wherein, then the present Appellant, in a deceitful manner, made her drink alcohol mixed cold drink and made a forceful physical relation with her for 2-3 times. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix first came in contact with the present Appellant 3 days before the birthday party of one Dr. Nitu and on 14.08.2022, on the birthday party of Dr. Nitu at Rivera Resort, Chikhli, the present Appellant allured her of giving guidance as they both belong to same profession and also proposed her for marriage. It is further alleged that after the next day of the incident dated 29.08.2022, the present Appellant further assured her of marriage and took her to his house to introduce her to his family members, wherein, she came to know that he is already having an affair with another girl namely Divya Dhurandhar and upon being asked, his mother assured her that nothing as such is happening but later, gradually their behaviour turned negative towards her (prosecutrix) and she was told that marriage between her and the present Appellant cannot take place as they belong to higher caste. It is also alleged that on 15.11.2022, the present Appellant came to her and started abusing her in filthy language and also threatened her with lathi in front of her house at 8.30 p.m, therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against him.

Shri Bharat, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the incident took place on 29.08.2022 and the FIR was lodged belatedly on 03.12.2022, thus, there is an inordinate delay of more than 3 months. He further submits that the present Appellant and his family members had agreed for marriage with the prosecutrix, but meanwhile, they came across a video of the prosecutrix wherein, she was with another man in a swimming pool in an objectionable condition, therefore, after coming to know such fact, the preparation for marriage broke up and the relevant bookings made for the marriage also stood disturbed and even they came to know that the prosecutrix is not pursuing her MBBS studies and has falsely projected herself as an MBBS student. He further submits that the present Appellant is a qualified MBBS Doctor and was already enlarged on anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 24.01.2023 passed in M.Cr.C(A) No.34/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and subsequently, during investigation, offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was added. He further submits that the main issue is not with regard to the prosecutrix belonging to a particular category of caste, therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST act also is not attracted and when the present Appellant has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, then his re-arrest, merely on account of addition of some Section is not permissible. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Manoj Suresh Jadhav and Others vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 17 SCC 362 and submits that the Special Court has wrongly rejected his Petition and the only remedy now open for the State is to apply for cancellation of his bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. He lastly submits that considering all these aspects, the present Appellant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposed the bail application. The prosecutrix present before this Court on 31.03.2023 has also raised a serious objection in grant of bail to the Appellant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions put forth by learned Counsel for the parties, particularly considering that the present Appellant was already granted anticipatory bail and subsequently, another offence was added under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the nature of offence and also considering that the bar under the SC/ST Act is not applicable, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present Appellant.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Appellant, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail and he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial and shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.