Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunita Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 September, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRA-3663-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3663-2020
(SUNITA YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 07-09-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri S.K. Chansoriya, counsel for the appellants.
Shri N.S. Solanki, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri R.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The status report of SC ATR No.189/2019 has been received.
Case diary perused and arguments heard.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 22/05/2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur in SC ATR No.189/2019, whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellants Sunita Yadav and Nikhil Yadav under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.419/2019 registered at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 365, 368, 376 (2)(N), 370, 371, 506, 120B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
As per prosecution case, prosecutrix who was minor used to work in a shop named Yogesh Dresses, located at Ranjhi Jabalpur, and co-accused Shanky Raikwar was her friend. Shanky Raikwar introduced her to appellant No.1 Sunita Yadav and his son appellant No.2 Nikhil Yadav. On 02.04.2019 appellant No.2, Nikhil Yadav told her that it was his birthday and his mother Sunita Yadav had arranged a party in which she was invited, on which she went to Nikhil Yadav'€™s house situated at Kanchanpur, where co- accused Shanky Raikwar was also present. After the party at night, appellant No.2 Nikhil Yadav committed rape with her and also made a video of his act and on the basis of that video, blackmailed the prosecutrix. Appellants confined the prosecutrix in their house from 02/09/2019 to 05/09/2019. On Signature Not Verified SAN 05.04.2019 Appellant Nos. 1 & 2 Sunita & Nikhil took the prosecutrix to Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.09.08 14:34:38 IST 2 CRA-3663-2020 Jabalpur Railway Station from where appellant No.1 Sunita and one other person took the prosecutrix to Gangapur City, Rajasthan where co-accused Nandkishore and Pramod met them. Thereafter, they took the prosecutrix to Pramod's rented house where they confined prosecutrix for four days. Appellant No.2 Nikhil and co-accused Shanky Raikwar also came there.
Thereafter, appellant No.1 Sunita Yadav and co-accused Nand Kishore and Pramod took the prosecutrix to Kota where they kept her in the house of co- accused Nand Kishore and forcibly married the prosecutrix with co-accused Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya and also took Rs.2,25,000/- from him. Thereafter, co-accused Golu sexually exploited the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix informed the incident to her Grand-Mother Saroj Ben on phone. On that, police recovered the prosecutrix from the possession of co-accused Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya and registered Crime No.419/2019 at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 365, 368, 376 (2)(N), 370, 371, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2)
(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. During the investigation on 26.05.2019 police arrested the appellants. On that appellants filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for being released on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellants filed this Criminal Appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the offence. Prosecutrix was major and she voluntary performed marriage with the co- accused Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya. On the report of co-accused Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya police registered Crime No.204/19 at Police Station Ataru, District Bara (Rajasthan) against the prosecutrix. The appellants have no criminal past. They have been in custody since 26.05.2019 and the conclusion of the trial will take time. Besides due to suspension of normal Signature Not Verified SAN Court functioning in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic the trial has come to a Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.09.08 14:34:38 IST 3 CRA-3663-2020 halt and therefore, there is every possibility of further delay in the trial. Hence prayed for the release of the appellants on bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Deepak Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Another decided on 23/07/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.16979/2020 and also an order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Leeladhar Raikwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 19/08/2020 in M.Cr.C.No.7091/2020.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellants abducted the prosecutrix and appellant No.2 Nikhil Yadav committed rape with her and thereafter sold her, so they should not be released on bail.
The orders upon which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants do not help them much, as in those orders the Court has not held that in every case the appellant should be released on bail because the trial is held up due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Hon'€™ble Supreme Court in its order dated March 23 passed in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1/2020 Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 344 has not held that due to COVID pandemic every prisoner has to be "compulsorily" released from prisons. The same depends on various factors including, the gravity of the offence involved, the nature of the offence, the severity of the offence with which an under-trial is charged with or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate, would be the guiding factors for taking a decision.
The position was also clarified by the Hon'€™ble Supreme Court in its order dated 13th April 2020 where the Court observed:-
"We make it clear that we have not directed the States/Union Territories to compulsorily release the prisoners from their respective prisons. The purpose of our aforesaid order was to ensure the States/Union Territories to Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.09.08 14:34:38 IST
4 CRA-3663-2020 assess the situation in their prisons having regard to the outbreak of the present pandemic in the country and release certain prisoners and for that purpose to determine the category of prisoners to be released."
In Madhya Pradesh, the High-Powered Committee constituted pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, earlier vide order dated 23/03/2020 had directed that the only those undertrial prisoners who are facing trial for the offences in which maximum sentence prescribed is up to 5 years be released on interim bail for the period of 45 days. Thereafter Committee again issued the direction that those undertrial prisoners who are facing trial for the offences in which the maximum sentence prescribed is up to 7 years also be released on interim bail for the period of 90 days. While appellants are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 365, 368, 376 (2) (N), 370, 371, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
It is alleged that the appellants abducted the prosecutrix who was minor and appellant No.2 Nikhil Yadav committed rape with her and thereafter Appellant No.1 and other co-accused took the prosecutrix to Kota, where they kept her in the house of co-accused Pramod and forcibly married her with co-accused Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya and also took Rs.2,25,000/- from him, thereafter co-accused Golu sexually exploited the prosecutrix. In the FIR lodged by the co-accused Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya also it is mentioned that appellant No. 1 Sunita took Rs.2,25,000/- from him.
So, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellants.
Hence, this appeal is rejected.
However, it appears from the record that the appellants are in custody since 26/05/2019 and the trial is still pending, so it is expected from the trial Court to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of 9 months from the date of receiving of the copy of this order.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial Court Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.09.08 14:34:38 IST 5 CRA-3663-2020 for necessary compliance.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE as Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.09.08 14:34:38 IST