Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-13111-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-13111-2020
(MANISH DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-07-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri R.K. Shukla, learned cousnel for the applicant.
Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri M.K. Chourasia, learned counsel for the objector. This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
T he applicant-accused is in custody since 18.01.2020 in connection w it h Crime No. 33/2020, registered at Police Station Dehat District Hoshangabad (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 294, 506 and 384 of IPC.
As per prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant came into the contact of applicant in the year 2018 while working in the Dhanvarsha Finance Company, the applicant was her client. On the occasion of Holi festival, the parents of accused called the complainant for celebration. Thereafter the complainant reached there, where she found that the parents of applicant went to Budhani. The applicant offered her water, thereafter she became unconscious. The applicant made a video and threatened her to viral the same. Thereafter, the applicant/accused provided a duplex to the prosecutrix in rent at Sai City Colony where he tortured her. Thereafter, the applicant/accused made her stay at Rewa City Colony where he used to rape upon her. On her asking about the marriage, the applicant/accused beat her which resulted into injury to the complainant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the prosecution story itself shows that the prosecutrix made physical relationship on her own will. The prosecutrix herself stated that the applicant has been 2 MCRC-13111-2020 making physical relationship with her since last two years. The allegations made against the applicant are omnibus and false. He further submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecution has failed to explain the same. He further submits that the applicant has performed marriage with the prosecutrix and they were living together. The mother of prosecutrix demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and due to inability to pay the same, the proseuctrix lodged the false report. In support of his argument, he filed some photographs. The charge sheet has already been filed and no further interrogation is required in the case. The applicant may not be detained for indefinite period. He has no criminal past. Due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, trial will take long time for final disposal. There is no probability of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence by the accused/applicant. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the submission made by the applicant's counsel.
Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application submitting that on the false pretext of marriage, the applicant committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is evident from the case diary, the applicant also assaulted the prosecutrix. If he releases on bail, he will affect the prosecution witnesses. With the aforesaid, he prays for dismissal this bail application.
Heard perused the case diary.
On perusal of case diary, it appears that prosecutrix is widow lady and came into the contact of applicant in the year 2018. According to prosecutrix the applicant has been making physical relationship with her since 2018 but she lodged the FIR on 17.01.2020 after passing about two years period. The prosecutrix herself stated that the applicant provided accommodation to her. Therefore, prima facie the prosecutrix seems to be a consenting party. Charge sheet has already been filed and due to spread of Covid-19, there is possibility for consuming time in conclusion of trial.
3 MCRC-13111-2020 Therefore, considering the above said circumstances but without commenting on merits of the case, the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.
It is directed that applicant-Manish Dubey be released on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. It is also directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Further in view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the applicant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing.
Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P. No.01/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-
1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before their release.
2. The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
3 . If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing them in appropriate quarantine facility.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2020.07.09 17:13:48 +05'30'