2025:CGHC:55633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1181 of 2021 Smt. Nishi Upadhyay W/o Sunil Kumar Updhayay Aged About 29 Years R/o Rawatpura Colony, Bhatagaon, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhat- tisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Dis- trict : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sunil Kumar Upadhyay S/o Jagdish Prasad Aged About 39 Years Deputy Director ( Finance), Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate (through VC) For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03.11.2025 1. This CrMP has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 16.07.2021 and 21.06.2021 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby respondent No.5 was granted anticipatory bail. 2. Brief facts of this case is that a complaint was made by the present applicant before Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur regarding the physical and mental torture done by the husband/ respondent no.5 over which counseling was conducted which failed and finally the FIR was registered u/s 323, 294, 498A, 506 of I.P.C against the respondent no.5 bearing crime no.47/2021 at police station Mahila Thana, Raipur. The accused/ respondent no.5 had preferred an anticipatory bail application before the learned court below which was objected by the present petitioner on various grounds, however the same was allowed vide order dated 21.06.2021 (Annexure P/1). The court below had allowed the bail mainly on three grounds-that there is no medical of complainant/ petitioner on record, no complaint has been made by the applicant for earlier events of violence & the accused had earlier made complaint against the brother of the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that after the physical torture done by the accused the petitioner was medically examined at District hospital, Pandri Raipur and was also referred to MKHR Hospital Ralpur for expert opinion, however due to crowd and burden of COVID cases in MKHR hospital the applicant along with the female constable in fear of Covid exposure were constrained to seek the further medical examination from a private physician. The petitioner had also raised various other grounds which was not adjudicated properly by the learned court below. In the abovementioned bail order the learned court below had specifically stated that there was no medical report of the petitioner by which it could be prime-facie established that there were instances of physical torture by respondent no.5 against the petitioner. That the aforesaid bail order was challenged by the petitioner which was rejected vide order dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure P/2). Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned court had failed to appreciate the material on records properly where the medical report clearly stated about the various injuries over the body of the petitioner/ victim, and this report was kept apart from the case diary by the concerned SHO before sending the case diary for adjudication of the anticipatory bail prefered by the accused/ respondent nо.5. The learned court below also erred in appreciating the fact that the medical report dated 03.06.2021 was missing from the case diary, as the respondent no.5 in conspiracy with the concerned S.H.O. had managed to remove the medical report before submitting the case diary for the adjudication of the anticipatory ball of the accused. He further contended that the Court below while deciding the application u/s 439 (2) CrPC the court below has observed that the petitioner has obtained the Medical Report through RTI and has produced the medical report dated 26.04.2021 where no external injuries were shown in the report, but infact there were two medical report which were placed before the court below Le. 26.04.2021 and 03.06.2021. The other medical report dated 03.06.2021 was not considered by the learned court while deciding the application filed by the petitioner where the report clearly shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner (Annexure P/3). The concerned police persons had the duty of collecting all the medical reports of the petitioner/ complainant which forms an integral part of the case diary, however the police persons in-spite of collecting the medical report of the petitioner had nexus with the accused and removed the only medical report from the case diary to make way for the anticipatory bail of the accused/ respondent no.5. This act of the police persons reveal the prevailing conditions of law and order in the capital of the State of Chhattisgarh. He further contended that the petitioner had earlier complained about the tortures of the accused/respondent no.5 in April 2021, however the same was taken to be a matrimonial matter and information was recorded u/s 155 Cr.PC. Therefore the finding of the court below that the petitioner had not made any complaint on earlier events is against the facts on record. It is, therefore prayed that order dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure A-1) and impugned order dated 21.06.2021 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. be quashed and the bail granted to the Respondent No. 05 should be cancelled and action be taken against the police personnels of Mahila Thana. Raipur who were involved in the illegal act of fabricating the case diary in the present matter by directing a investigation against them, also the investigation of the matter in crime no. 47/2021 at Police Station, Mahila thana Raipur be fairly conducted by any senior police official. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and contended that the police has filed charge sheet and the case is fixed for evidence on 27.11.2025 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Further considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed, at this juncture, I am no inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the trial. However, it will be decided by the trial Court that whether the police personnels of Mahila Thana, Raipur (C.G.) were involved in the illegal act of fabricating the case diary in the present matter or not. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant