Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-21470-2017
sh
(ASHISH VISHWAKARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
2
ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-11-2017
Pr
Shri Sampoorn Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Akhilesh Singh, Government Advocate for the
a
respondent/State.
hy Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under ad section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf M of petitioner Ashish Vishwakarma in Crime No. No.1243/2015 registered by P.S.-Garha, District-Jabalpur under Sections of 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
rt As per the prosecution case, as reflected in the first ou information report, petitioner Ashish Vishwakarma was a Journalist and prosecutrix was Counselor of a ward at C Jabalpur. The prosecutrix lodged a first information report in h P.S. Garha on 16.11.2017 to the effect that about 2 years ig before the date of the report, petitioner Ashish came in H contact with prosecutrix in her professional capacity. After the death of Deepmala, wife of petitioner Ashish, the prosecutrix, who is a 30 years old married lady, had gone to the residence of the petitioner along with her husband to console him. A case was registered in respect of suicide committed by Deepmala against the petitioner. After his return from jail about one year before lodging of report, the petitioner visited the house of the prosecutrix and started to indulge in obscene behaviour. He threatened the prosecutrix that he was a Journalist and would destroy the political career of the prosecutrix. He alleged that the prosecutrix and her husband had got wife of the petitioner killed and in the case sh the petitioner had to spent Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.11,00,000/- and the prosecutrix and her husband should reimbursed the same.
e ad On 09.10.2015 also, the petitioner called the prosecutrix and indulged in obscene talks. At about 10:30 p.m. he visited Pr house of the prosecutrix and repeated his act. When her a husband arrived, the petitioner started to beat her husband.
hy He also caught hold of the hand of the prosecutrix and ad indulged in a scuffle. In order to protect the prosecutrix, her husband picked something lying there and hit the petitioner M with it. As such, for a period of about 2 years, the petitioner of has been mentally and physically harassing and exploiting the prosecutrix.
rt In the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 of the ou Code of Criminal Procedure she stated on 02.12.2015 that at C the time of "Holi" the petitioner had administered "Bhang" in milk to the prosecutrix and had raped her in an inebriated h ig condition in a hotel. He also took her obscene photographs H and started to blackmail her. He also used to threaten that he would kill her husband and son of the prosecutrix. On 09.10.2015 the petitioner had come and had misbehaved with the prosecutrix and had torn her gown and had physically exploited her, her husband had arrived and a scuffle ensued, wherein the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, on 09.10.2015 the petitioner was invited by the prosecutrix and her husband to their residence to celebrate his birthday. During the celebration, a quarrel started and Hridesh, the husband of the prosecutrix and Neeraj caused injuries to the petitioner with sh sharp edged objects. On the report of the petitioner lodged at night, a case under section 294 and 307 read with section 34 e ad of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the husband of the prosecutrix and Neeraj Rajpoot. In order to pressurize Pr the petitioner to enter into a compromise in that case, the a present FIR has been falsely lodged by the prosecutrix. In the hy first information report, there is no allegation regarding rape;
ad however, in the statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the rape has been alleged. The M improvements introduced in the statement under section 164 of of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not find mention in the first information report. It is highly improbable that a woman, rt who is in politics and is a Counselor, would be cowed down by ou the empty threats of a journalist. The incident had occurred C two years ago; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. h ig Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on H the other hand has opposed the application. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner deserves to be released on anticipatory bail. Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Ashish Vishwakarma, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his sh appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub e ad section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified copy as per rules.
Pr a hy (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE ad M of Digitally signed by BIJU BABY b 2017.11.23 21:27:35 Date: rt
-08'00' ou C h ig H