^&^ o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIL^SPUR CR1MWAL REVISION N0. 4 4 ^ /zoii. APPLICANT: ^•^sy Dated........^"^"-'" r«*t<^» ^^!P 5^<3D' Ku Jwala Khelwar D/0 Shri Laldas Khelwar agedabout.17 years, R/0 Sram + Post - Thakurtola Thana-Gandai, District-: Rajnandgoan (C6) fslqtii-^ (<W<TS-<A<'OM. 41->rouAti-F<trte'<' SViri jqtclao >;he)y^t ./( Vs - - RESPONbENTS; •Aeeused- 1. Deepak Sayakwad S/0 Shri Hinchuram aged aboLif 23_ fwam^ muvJT^4 '^ ^^ v^ "" ',, Ward No-14, Tikn'para "^ t^^w^ Thana- CeHtelai i_ Thana-Gandai, District- Rajnandgoan (C(S) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector Rajnandgoan.(£.6.) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SEC- ~~~^uu-aEjyECQDEOF CRIMINAL PROCE&URE.1973 ^-^- HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bencji: Hon'bleShrLManin^ra^NIoharLSJiriyastaya, J, Appljcant ResBondents Cr.M.P.No.657/2011 Ku. Jwala Khelwar Versus Deepak Gayakwad and another Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri Sham Sunder Lal Tekchandani, counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel forthe respondent No.1. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 05-12-2011) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. aggrieved by rejection of petitioner's application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. By the impugned order dated 19-07-2011, the petitioner's application for cancellation of bail of respondent No.1 has been rejected. Initially, the revision petition was filed, but, later on, an application for conversion of the revision petition into petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which was allowed directing registration of case as a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Crime No.19/2011 has been registered against the respondent on allegation of commission of offence under Section 376 and 506 of the IPC. The respondent had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was allowed vide order dated 05-02-2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh and it was directed that in the event of arrest, the respondent shall be released on bail. While granting bail, as many as four conditions were imposed on the respondent and it was observed that in case of violation of the conditions, bail granted shall be liable to be cancelled. Later on, regular bail was also granted to the respondent vide order dated 23-02-2011 on the conditions that fhe respondent shall not directly or indirecfly tamper with prosecution witnesses and shall regularly appear before the Court on each and every date. It was observed .^y\ ! fe®^1 I, '^-"--3 j? t. l-.^.^ YS^ L that in case of violation of the conditions, bail granted shall be liable to be cancelled. 3. The petitioner moved an application for cancellation of bail on the allegations that after bail has been granted, the respondent is continuously violating the conditions of grant of bail. It has also been stated in the application that in order to arrive at compromise, the respondent assaulted the prosecutrix on 03-05-2011 and 27-05-201 1, due to which, the prosecutrix is in a state of fear. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, however rejected the application, refusing to cancel the bail holding that in the reportdated 03-05-2011 and 27-05-2011 lodged by the prosecutrix, there are no allegations that the prosecutrix was threatened to change her statement, but later on, in the report submitted before the Superintendent of Police, such an allegation has been made, which shows that on afterthought grounds, allegations are being leveled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after bail was granted to the respondent, on 03-05-2011, he assaulted the petitioner, which was reported in the Police Station. The petitioner was sent for medical examination and in the medical examination, injuries in the form of abrasions were found, which prima facie supports the allegation that the petitioner was assaulted. Thereafter, the Police did not take any action and during that period, the petitioner was advised to approach the Court treating it to be non-cognizable case. Thereafter, another report was lodged in the Police Station, alleging that on 27-05-2011, the respondent expressed that he wanted to meet the prosecutrix and at the time of meeting, the prosecutrix was again abused and threatened as well as assaulted, due to which, she has received injuries. She was again sent for medical examination, in which, as many as six abrasions were found. The police, thereafter, investigated the matter and charge sheet has been filed in relation to the investigation dated 27-05-2011, which clearly shows that the respondent is '—-•^'i '«~s^'^ misusing his liberty time and again by establishing contact with the prosecutrix and threatening as well as assaulting her. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the allegations leveled against the respondent are only intended to somehow seek cancellation of bail granted to the respondent. It is submitted that the anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent taking into consideration extra-ordinary features of the case that the present is a case of love affair between the petitioner and the respondent and false case of commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC has been made out. It is also submitted that number of prosecution witnesses have already been examined and trial is likely to be concluded very soon. It is also submitted that though, there are certain allegations of respondent assaulting the prosecutrix, it is not specifically stated that those assaults were made to tamper with the prosecutrix witness or to change her statement. Later on, a report was made to the Superintendent of Police by falsely stating, on afterthought grounds, that the prosecutrix is being compelled to change her statement. 7. The respondent was granted anticipatory bail and later on granted regular bail on specific conditions that he shall not directly or indirectly influence the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner firstly reported the matter on 03-05-201 1 that she was assaulted by the respondent. When the prosecutrix was medically examined, simple injuries were found on her body. Thereafter, in another incident alleged to have happened on 27-05-2011, in which, again, it has been alleged that the petitioner was assaulted and abused. The police registered offence, conducted investigation and charge sheet has been filed and along with the charge sheet, medical examination report has also been annexed, which shows number of abrasions on the body of the prosecutrix. In both the incidents, where there is an allegation of assault on the prosecutrix, the medical report has ,y ^ revealed certain injuries, may be simple in nature. The Police has also filed charge sheet in the case of incident dated 27-05-2011 . 8. Taking into consideration the entire material, which has been placed before this Court, the allegations that the prosecutrix has been assaulted time and again by the respondent, cannot be said to be afterthought or totally baseless, because each time injuries have been found on the person of the prosecutrix. Therefore, merely because, specific allegations have not been made that such assault was made to change the statement of the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that the respondent has not made any attempt to directly or indirectly influence the prosecution witnesses. In the present case, the petitioner is the star witness of the prosecution. The manner, in which, the respondent has indulged in repeatedly assaulting the petitioner, makes out a case of violation of the terms and conditions, on which, bail was granted to the respondent. In these circumstances, the application for cancellation of bail is liable to be allowed and the Court below erred in rejecting the application. 9. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 19-07-2011 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is hereby set aside. The application for cancellation of bail is allowed. Bail granted to the respondent is cancelled. Bail bond stands forfeited. The respondent shall be taken into custody and the Court below shall proceed against the respondent in accordance with law. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- Tumane ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge