Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mitin Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2015
MCRC-8702-2015
(MITIN KUMAR MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
24-07-2015
Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel, with Shri Yash Soni,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.
Shri Shahnawaz Khan, learned counsel for the prosecutrix. Swati D/o Dinesh Chand Soni, who is prosecutrix in the case, is present in person before this court. She is duly identified by her counsel. Her presence is marked.
Heard on I.A. No.13447/2015, which is an application moved on behalf of the applicant for taking affidavit of prosecutrix Swati on record.
Looking to the nature of offence, the I.A. is allowed and her affidavit is taken on record.
Upon the affidavit of prosecutrix, this court has made a short inquiry. The prosecutrix has told this court that she is betrothed to the applicant and her marriage with him will be performed some time in the month of January 2016.
It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecutrix is present with her mother Krishna Soni and she is also identified by counsel Shri Shahnawaz Khan. She has also reiterated whatever the prosecutrix had told this Court.
Heard arguments on bail plea.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.38/2015 registered at Police Station Chakghat, District Rewa, against him for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Prosecution allegations are that on 9.5.2015, prosecutrix Swati lodged a written report with the police stating therein that the applicant had taken her with him after giving assurances of marrying her. Thereafter, he sexually exploited her for a considerable period.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix has stated in the FIR that her age is 17 years. Therefore, she is on the verge of attaining majority and she is mature enough to know the consequences of going with the applicant. It is also submitted by him that today the prosecutrix and her mother have told this court that the applicant has been engaged to the prosecutrix and their marriage will be performed in the month of January 2016. It is also submitted by him that the father of prosecutrix Dinesh, has filed no objections along with his affidavit for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. However, today he is not present. It is also submitted by him that the applicant has been working as Assistant Manager in TATA Finance at Rewa. If he is arrested in this case, he will certainly lose his job and not only that his future career will also be spoiled. Lastly, it is also submitted by him that the applicant is ready to furnish local surety of Rewa town. Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the statements made by the prosecutrix and her mother before the Court, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is allowed. He is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case on or before 03.08.2015 for interrogation and submission of the documentary proof of his permanent address and contact numbers. The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicant in the aforesaid crime numbers and offences, he be released on bail immediately on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one local solvent surety of Rewa town in the like amount to his satisfaction. He would abide by the conditions enumerated in sub section (2) of 438 of the Cr.P.C. and fully co-operate the investigating officer in the course of investigation of it. It is also made clear that if the applicant does not co-operate the Investigating Officer in investigation, then this Court will recall this order upon the application being made by the respondent/State. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE