Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Thakoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17914 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
JITENDRA THAKORIYA S/O SHRI RAMDAS
THAKORIYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE R/O JHUGGI NO 180, SANJAY NAGAR, POLICE
STATION SHAHAJAHANABAD DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI PRADEEP SINGH CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SHAHPURA R/O DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI B.K. UPADHYAY - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
SHRI NAMAN GUPTA - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail who is apprehending his arrest relating to FIR/Crime No.154/2023 dated 31.03.2023 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhopal for the offence under Sections 344, 312 and 376 of IPC as mentioned in his application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2023.05.11 10:02:42 IST innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that there is 2 no direct evidence against the applicant. He further submits that applicant is permanent resident of the district and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Upon these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Learned Dy. Government Advocate has strongly opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.
The facts of the case diary reveal that prosecutrix is a married lady who is of the age of 27 years. She lodged the report of crime of Section 376(2)(n) of IPC on 31.03.2023 while the alleged incident occurred on 22.12.2022. Thus, there was a delay of three months in lodging the report. Earlier also a criminal case under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC was registered against the present applicant on the basis of FIR lodged by the same prosecutrix in which an order of acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. has been passed on 24.02.2023. It may be observed that when the statements of prosecutrix were being recorded on 22.02.2023 in that earlier case, she spoke no word about the commission of second crime while it was allegedly committed by them. The order of acquittal in the earlier case was passed in the light of hostile testimony of the prosecutrix. Though the prosecutrix has raised the objection on bail petition, her MLC report suggests that she has been in continuous physical relation with the applicant and last such incident was of 23.03.2023.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it Signature Not Verified SAN appropriate to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the application Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2023.05.11 10:02:42 IST is allowed.
3It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant by the police in the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer) for his regular appearance before the Police /Arresting Officer during the investigation or before the Court during trial.
It is directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C., failing which this order shall automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the Court.
Accordingly, the M.Cr.C stands allowed and disposed of.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE Nitesh Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2023.05.11 10:02:42 IST