Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8651 (CHH)

SADAB ALI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/1325/2025 · 2025-02-17

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:8160 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1325 of 2025 Sadab Ali S/o. Anwar Ali Aged About 24 Years (Now 27 Years), R/o. Khurai Gandhiwada, Ward No. 9, Tahsil - Khurai, P.S.- Khurai, District - Sagar (Madhya Pradesh) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer P.S.- City Kotwali, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.02.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1232/2022 registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution's case is that in 2018-19, the victim was using a mobile phone when she met the accused on Facebook. The accused sent a friend request, which the victim accepted. Later, the accused ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.18 11:51:00 +0530 2 asked the victim to meet at a hotel on 10.09.2021. The victim stayed at the hotel in Raigarh, where the accused allegedly forced the victim into a physical relationship and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The accused repeated this behavior on 15.01.2022, staying with the victim for three to four days. Even after the victim's husband became aware of the situation, the accused continued to force the victim into a physical relationship. The victim eventually filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused at the City Kotwali Raigarh Police Station. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the victim and the applicant came into contact through social media (Facebook). He also submits that the victim, a married woman with three children, was in a relationship with the applicant. Furthermore, he argues that the victim with her own will twice visited the hotel where the applicant had invited her, and established a physical relationship with him. He also submits that the statement of the victim and her husband has already been recorded by the trial Court and the applicant is in jail since 01.09.2022, conclusion of the trial may take sometime, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant/accused forcefully committed sexually intercourse with the victim, therefore, he is not entitled for 3 grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and from perusal of statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it appears that the victim is a married lady having 03 children and she came in contact with the applicant through social media (facebook), further the fact that the victim had twice went to the hotel where applicant had called her with her own will and established physical relationship with the applicant and when their relationship could not be materialized, the victim informed her husband and lodged an FIR against the applicant, moreover, it is stated that the statement of the victim and her husband have already been recorded by the trial Court, the present applicant has been in jail since 01.09.2022, trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let applicant, Sadab Ali, involved in Crime No. 1232/2022 registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 4 fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified 5 copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek