Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nilesh Meshram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-11198-2018
(NILESH MESHRAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-03-2018
Shri Manish Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Lakhera, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section sh 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Nilesh Meshram in Crime No.98/2018 registered by P.S. Lalbarra, e ad District-Balaghat under Sections 294, 323, 354, 354-Ka and 506 of the IPC.
Pr As per the prosecution case, prosecutrix is a 39 years old married woman, who is Sarpanch of the village. She had constructed a a hy platform with the steel railing for the purpose of unfurling the National Flag. On 10.03.2018, some truck driver had crashed into the railing, ad damaging the same. However, the driver had promised that he would M get the railing repaired. At about 7:00 a.m. the next day, i.e. on 11.03.2018, she learnt that petitioner Nilesh Meshram, is carting away of the damaged railing. Whereon, the victim protested. The petitioner rt filthily abused her and caught hold of her hand with intend to outrage ou her modesty. When the prosecutrix raised an alarm, her husband Dinesh Rakade and other witnesses came on the spot and rescued the C prosecutrix. The petitioner threatened that he would get the h ig prosecutrix and her husband implicated in a case under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. H Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecutrix is Sarpanch of the village. She is married and her age is 39 years. The incident is said to have taken at a public place. The petitioner is said to have caught hold of hands of the prosecutrix with intent to outrage her modesty, which appears to be highly improbable at such a place. It has further been stated that though allegation has been made regarding outraging modesty of the prosecutrix in the first information report, the same is missing in statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact, petitioner is Up-sarpanch of the village, which fact has been conceded by the prosecutrix. The incident is concocted. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because he had lodged several complaints with the police and other authorities with regard to interference in the working of Gram Panchayat by Dinesh Rakade, i.e. husband of the prosecutrix; therefore, it has been prayed that petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the sh case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the e learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, this is a ad fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Pr Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner a Nilesh Meshram, is allowed.
hy It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be ad released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum M of Rs.40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial of Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in rt sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ou Certified copy as per rules.
C (C V SIRPURKAR) h JUDGE ig H vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.03.27 02:25:15 -07'00'