Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit Alias Sonu Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 18 July, 2018
1 MCRC-24194-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-24194-2018
(SUMIT ALIAS SONU SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
Gwalior, Dated : 18-07-2018
Shri H. K. Shukla, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Pachauri, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/
State.
Shri Amit Goswami, counsel for the complainant. Heard on IA No.5748/2018, which is an application for impleading the complainant as party.
Since the complainant is already represented by his counsel, therefore, IA No. 5748/2018 has rendered infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
Also heard on this first bail application filed under Section 439 of CrPC.
The applicant has been arrested on 10/05/2018 in connection with Crime No. 06/2018 registered at Police Station Alampur, District Bhind for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [ in short '' the POCSO Act''].
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix is more than 18 years of age and she is major. Even otherwise, the applicant and the prosecutrix have married each other and blessed with a female baby child.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant that as per school certificate, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 20/07/2003, therefore, she is minor. Further, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that even if the prosecutrix is treated to be major, then the applicant is still guilty of committing rape in view of Section 375 (fourthly) of IPC, because under the Hindu Law the marriage is not a contract and as per the marriage agreement filed by the applicant along with the application, it is clear that the marriage agreement was executed between the parties and thus, the applicant had created a bona fide belief in the mind of the prosecutrix that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, whereas the marriage agreement is not a recognized mode of marriage under the Hindu Law and thus, under the said belief, if 2 MCRC-24194-2018 she had agreed for having physical relations with the applicant, then it is clear that the act of the applicant is covered under Section 375(fourthly) of IPC.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. The application is hereby rejected.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB MAHENDR A KUMAR Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P.S., postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9e3451ee450d883083a8e4 cc8020eee6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2018.07.19 15:27:51 +05'30' BARIK