Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Bajaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2014
1 Mcrc.8165/14
Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of M.P.
8/9/14
Shri J.P.Mishra, Advocate for the applicant-Sunil
Bajaj.
Shri Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Perused the case diary.
This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., preferred by the applicant.
The applicant has been arrested on 31/7/14 in connection with Crime No. 288/14 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, district Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Section 370(1)(6)(2)/34 of I.P.C.
As per prosecution case, Dehati Nalishi was lodged by the prosecutrix on 1/8/14 that she being poor person came into contact with Suresh and Puja Dixit. They made allurement to arrange for her good job. So she came at Gwalior on such assurance with Suresh and thereafter in good faith started living in his house. Since then Suresh and Puja continuously made a pressure over her to make an illicit relationship ship with other persons. It was also mentioned in the FIR that one photograph of the complainant was taken out by Suresh and handed over to Banti and thereafter one contact was made with Abhishek Bansal. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards advance was 2 Mcrc.8165/14 Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of M.P. also taken by Suresh. The prosecutrix further alleged that on the date of incident at about 7-8 p.m,. Banti and other persons came in Innova and white coloured Bolero and thereafter she was forcibly taken in these vehicles. In the same vehicles Vinay, Sunil Bajaj (present applicant) Sonu and Abhishek were also present. Then, they all reached in a flat where these persons started seeing the blue film after taking liquor. The aforesaid four, namely, Abhishek, Vinay, Sunil and Sonu then were alleged to have made illicit relations with the prosecutrix. At that time, all of a sudden police party reached there and made raid.
Prayer for bail was made on the ground that other co- accused namely shiv Kumar Sharma has already been released on bail by this court vide order dated 28/8/14 passed in Misc. Cri.C.No.7715/14 and therefore the present application may be considered and allowed on the same set of facts and circumstances of the case.
Prayer for bail was opposed by the learned P.P. for the State and it was contended that the person with whom the parity is being claimed was not named in the FIR nor in the statement given under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix and since the case of the applicant stands on different footing, his application is liable to be rejected. Apart that, it is also pointed out by the counsel for the State that some cases have also been registered against 3 Mcrc.8165/14 Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of M.P. the applicant and if the applicant is released in this case at the stage when the investigation is pending, the whole efforts of the prosecution would become futile. It is therefore prayed that the application may be rejected.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and after taking into account the the material available on record, at this point of time, in the opinion of this court, it would not be appropriate to give the benefit of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the application is rejected.
(B.D. Rathi) Judge (Bu)