Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahila Smt. Vinita Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2017
MCRC-2609-2017
(MAHILA SMT. VINITA KUSHWAHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
17-02-2017
Shri Shashank Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.P.Chadar, panel lawyer for the respondent State.
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioners Mahila Smt. Vinita Kushwaha and Mahila Smt. Vimla Kushwaha in Crime No.410/2016 registered by P.S.- Prathvipur, District- Tikamgarh under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 342 read with section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3/ 4 of the POCSO Act.
As per the prosecution case, on 18.10.2016, petitioners Vinita and Vimla along with Vinita's Husband and Vimla's nephew Prakash Kushwaha and one Jagdish came to residence of the victim and took her on a motorcycle to the house of main accused Pawan. The age of the prosecutrix is about 14 years and 5 months. They dropped the prosecutrix at Pawan's place and left. Thereafter, Pawan raped the prosecutrix. The next day, again four accused persons came to Pawan's house and asked the prosecutrix to marry Pawan and stay with him; however, prosecutrix refused. She returned home and after three days of the incident i.e. 03.11.2016, lodged the first information report.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the petitioner Vinita is 19 years old and petitioner Vimla is a lady. Pawan and the prosecutrix had a love affair. The role that has been ascribed to the petitioners is that they took the prosecutrix with them on a motorcycle to Pawan's place. There is no element of coercion or enticement present in the case; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent State on the other hand has opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that the prosecutrix is only 14 years and 5 months old so there is no question of a love affair.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the peripheral role ascribed to the petitioners as also the fact that there is no element of coercion or enticement present in the case, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Mahila Smt. Vinita Kushwaha and Mahila Smt. Vimla Kushwaha is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for their appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh