High CourtsSingle Bench

Thuru @ Dhuru Avinash vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 7 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 CHH CK 0017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Goutam Bhaduri, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294, 342, 354, 365, 376(2)(n), 506 · Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1351, 1448 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 428 words
1.

Both these appeals are decided by this common order as they are arising out of the same crime number.

2.

CRA No. 1351 of 2021 is arising out of order dated 22/10/2021 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Sarguja, Amikapur in Bail Application

No.939/2021 and CRA No. 1448 of 2021 is arising out of order dated 27/10/2021 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Sarguja, Amikapur in Bail

Application No.984/2021.

3.

The appellants have preferred these appeals for grant of bail as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.112/2021 registered in Police Station

Lundra, District Ambikapur (Surguja) (C.G.) for offence punishable under sections 294, 506, 342, 354, 365, 376(2) (n), 34 of Indian Penal Code and

under Section 3(2-5) of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4.

As per the prosecution case, initially on 4/08/2021 at 4 pm Thuru and Pravin came to the house of the prosecutrix and abused her, thereafter she

closed her door. Subsequently, after some time at 8 pm Pravin and Pramod came forcefully took her to the house of Pramod Paikra, thereafter she

was subjected to rape for three days and threat was also extended that if she discloses the thing, she would be killed and lastly on 7/08/2021 she was

left at her maternal home.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the victim is a married lady of 25 years, Pravin and Pramod both belong to ST community whereas

Thuru is non-tribe. He further submits that the prosecutrix was married lady, she was consenting party and she of her own went along with the

appellants and it is completely impossible to take her in a broad day light from one place to another as she is a married lady, therefore the appellants

may be released on bail.

6.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and read out the statement of the victim.

7.

Perused the case diary, the medical report is non-conclusive, she is shown to be aged about 25 years, map of the crime scene is also perused, taking

into the age of the victim and the way the incident happened, this court is inclined to release the appellants on bail.

8.

Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set-aside.

9.

The appellants are directed to be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum

to the satisfaction of concerned trial court for their regular appearance before it as and when directed.