Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Shankar Vaishya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2023
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9003 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHIV SHANKAR VAISHYA S/O RAM GOPAL VAISHYA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE ARGHAT P.S.
RAM NAGAR SATNA CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KHARI
P.S. BEOHARI DISTT. SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SOMESH SHUKLA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM X S/O NOT MENTION P.S. BEOHARI
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHWETA YADAV - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for grant of bail to the appellant, who is in jail since 16.03.2023 in connection of Crime No.494/2022, registered at Police Station Beohari District Shahdol (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 365, 366, 376, 376(2)(n), 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Signing time: 8/9/2023 11:27:11 AM 2 order dated 11.4.2023 by which appellant's regular bail has been dismissed.
2. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Prosecutrix is major aged about 19 years. Appellant and prosecutrix were having consensual relationship and had stayed in a room for about 10 days. Statement of owner of room was recorded. To said owner, appellant has disclosed that he and prosecutrix are husband and wife. Prosecutrix also met the said person but she did not inform about the act of rape. Said person also not been stated that prosecutrix is kept in a confinement. In these circumstances, counsel for the appellant made a prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.
3. Counsel appearing for the State Government has opposed the appeal for grant of bail. She relied on statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of prosecutrix. In said statement, prosecutrix stated that she was taken to room by the appellant wherein she was locked and forceful rape was committed on her.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Version of prosecutrix is different in 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.. Statement of owner of room where prosecutrix lived along with the appellant has also been recorded and he has not been stated about confinement of prosecutrix by appellant neither he has stated that at any time he has heard cries or knock on door for help.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, appeal is allowed.
7. It is directed that appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. In addition to that appellant shall abide by conditions enumerated in Section 437 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Signing time: 8/9/2023 11:27:11 AM 3 (3) of Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE DUBEY/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Signing time: 8/9/2023 11:27:11 AM