1 2025:CGHC:16906 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 511 of 2025 Abhimanyu Jaiswal S/o Jhanakram Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Basna, Police Station Basna, Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basna, Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video- conferencing. 2. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 572/2024 registered at Police Station – Basna, Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64 of the BNS. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 3. As per the prosecution case, on 15.12.2024 at about 7 P.M., F.I.R of the incident was lodged by the mother of the Prosecutrix in respect of the incident alleged to have been occurred at about 8:30 P.M on 03.12.2024. It has been alleged by the mother of the Prosecutrix that the applicant/accused lured the prosecutrix whose age is about 17 years, under the pretext of accompanying her outside, took her to a hut behind ITI Ground and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Furthermore, it is alleged that the appellant/accused threatened the Prosecutrix with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Hence the F.I.R. was lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. The allegations on the face of the facts are false and baseless as the applicant/accused is an active member of ruling party and due to village politics, on the instance of one Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chhabbra @ Rajju Sardar the instant F.I.R has been lodged. The F.I.R has been lodged with mala-fide intention. On the first instance when the F.I.R was lodged, just to make the matter sensitive the mother of the prosecutrix has lodged the F.I.R showing the age of the prosecutrix as 17 years, whereas the actual age of prosecutrix being 20 years and this fact can be fortified from the progress report issued by Government Girls School Basna. The prosecutrix has disclosed the fact of false implication to one Mr. Mustaq under whom her brother works and a video and voice recording of the said 3 disclosure shows that she has falsely implicated the applicant on the instance of Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chhabbra @ Rajju Sardar. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it was further alleged that on 26.05.2024 the house of Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chhabbra @ Rajju Sardar was demolished along with other unauthorized and illegal constructions by the government authorities and Mr. Charanjeet Singh @ Rajju Sardar carries an impression that the demolition drive took place politically and the house of Mr. Charanjeet Singh @ Rajju Sardar who belongs to the opposition has been demolished due to political rivalry. At the time of demolition Mr. Charanjeet Singh @ Rajju Sardar has approached the applicant who was the representative of the MLA but since the house of Mr. Charanjeet Singh @ Rajju Sardar and other persons was on the government land, therefore the MLA as well as the applicant have refused to help out Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chhabra @ Rajju Sardarand, therefore he was having grudge against the applicant. The prosecutrix along with her mother was working in the house of Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chhabbra @ Rajju Sardar and with mala-fide intention just to tarnish the image of the applicant she has been used a tool and the false F.I.R has been lodged. From perusal of the above stated documents it appears that the F.I.R has been lodged to score personal vendetta. To harass the applicant and to score personal grudge the entire story was framed and fabricated against the accused by means of complainant. The wife of applicant has made a complaint regarding the false prosecution against her husband in which the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer Police, Saraipali, 4 District Mahasamund, C.G. has submitted his report along with his enquiry and other necessary documents which clearly goes to show that the present applicant is falsely been implicated only to demean his political image. He later argued that as per the report submitted by SDO(P) it clearly reveals that the story narrated in the F.I.R. and story narrated during the investigation by SDO(P) are completely contrary to each other and appears to be highly un-probable. According to the story of prosecution the applicant has jumped from the roof of his house to the roof of Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chhabbra @ Rajju Sardar and thereafter somebody has opened the door of the house of Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chhabbra @ Rajju Sardar. Thereafter the applicant came to the house of Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chhabbra @ Rajju Sardar and has covered the eyes of the prosecutrix by scarf and thereafter she was taken behind ITI ground. According to the case of the prosecution the prosecutrix was taken behind the ITI ground by motorcycle and she has never raised any alarm. The applicant is a known person of that area. Therefore, the said story of prosecution on the face of it looks highly improbable. The entire story and the F.I.R was lodged after thought at the instance of Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chhabbra @ Rajju Sardar. Since it is practically not possible to ascertain the medical report of the victim after such gap of 11 days. The statement given to the SDO(P) is also not of sterling quality. The entire story is imaginary in nature. The applicant has no business with the complainant or her daughter. He has falsely been implicated in the instant case, so 5 as to end his Political Career. Instant F.I.R. and the present case is nothing but the politically motivated move against the applicant only to harass and to score personal resentment. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant an submits that the anticipatory bail application should be accepted exceptionally in such cases in which prima facie involvement in the crime is not shown whereas in this case the involvement of the applicant is prima facie visible. Also, no such exceptional circumstances are shown in this bail application on the basis of which the benefit of anticipatory bail should be given to the accused/applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 8. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary, it appears that the prosecutrix who is said to be aged about 17 years is actually 20 years old as per the progress report issued by Government Girls School Basna and further the wife of applicant has made a complaint regarding the false prosecution against her husband in which the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer Police, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, C.G. has submitted his report along with his enquiry and other necessary documents which clearly goes to show that the present applicant is falsely been implicated only to demean his political image, as such, without 6 further commenting anything on merits, this Court deems it fit to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Abhimanyu Jaiswal, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) He should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicant and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He should not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti