1 2025:CGHC:2209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2811 of 2024 1 - Xyz Nil (Details enclosed in envelope) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Geedam, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 2 - Sheetal Surana S/o Late Manak Lal Ji Surana Aged About 44 Years R/o Main Road, Suranapara, Geedam, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 – Sheetal Surana in MCRCA No.1228 of 2023, vide order dated 2.11.2023. An FIR was registered on behalf of respondent No.2 for the commission of an Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- offence punishable under Sections 323, 376(2)(n), 427, 452 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code on 20.9.2023. The allegation against respondent No.2 is that, although he was a friend of the victim’s husband, he forcibly entered the victim’s house in the absence of her husband and sexually assaulted her. Respondent No.2 also threatened the complainant to transmit audio and video clips and maintained a sexual relationship with her for a period of 9-10 months. 2. Respondent No.2 moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Court below, which was rejected. Thereafter, he filed a bail application before this Court. A notice was issued to the complainant, and she appeared through her counsel. The counsel appearing for the complainant expressed no objection to the grant of bail to respondent No.2. It was also stated that, at the instance of the complainant’s husband, the FIR was lodged. 3. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that the victim and respondent No.2 maintained a physical relationship for a period of 9-10 months, that the victim is a married lady aged about 32 years and that respondent No.2 is also a married person aged about 44 years, allowed the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the victim/petitioner would argue that the signature of the victim was taken on the affidavit and memo, which were filed in MCRCA No.1228 of 2023, by playing fraud. He would 3 contend that the local counsel took her signature on a blank paper, and later, the affidavit was executed on that blank paper. He would further submit that the victim, in her Court statement, has specifically stated that her signatures were taken fraudulently. He would pray for the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that the affidavit as well as the memo of appearance were given by the victim herself to appear in MCRCA No.1228 of 2023. She would contend that, at the instance of the victim, an application was also filed along with the affidavit, wherein it was stated that FIR was lodged at the instance of her husband. She would contend that the signatures of the victim were not fabricated on the affidavit and memo of appearance. She would further contend that the bail was granted by this Court after considering its merits. She would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned State counsel would support the contention made by counsel for respondent No.2. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. The petitioner in the present petition has filed an affidavit as well as the memo of appearance of the victim in a closed envelope. In -4- MCRCA No.1228 of 2023, the affidavit and memo of appearance of the victim were also kept in a closed envelope. A perusal of the affidavit and memo of appearance would reveal that the signatures on both documents are almost identical. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the affidavit and memo of appearance filed in MCRCA No.1228 of 2023, were not signed by the victim. Although the victim, in her deposition before the Court below, has stated that her signatures on the affidavit and memo of appearance were obtained fraudulently, if her signatures were taken on a blank paper and the memo of appearance was filed by playing fraud, the petitioner should have filed a complaint against the person involved before the Competent Authority. On this ground alone, the bail granted to respondent No.2 cannot be cancelled. 9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, no case is made out for interference. 10. Accordingly, this CRMP fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi