Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalu Sahu @ Kunal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2022
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33770 of 2022
Between:-
LALU SAHU @ KUNAL S/O GANESH SAHU ,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT GALI NO. 4 NAKA
CHANDRAVANDANI JHANSI ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI RAMKRISHNA BOHARE-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
POLICE STATION PS JHANSI ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. P E E D I TA THROUGH PS JHANSI ROAD,
GWALIOR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAMADHAR CHOUBEY- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05/07/2022 in M.Cr.C. No.30440/2022.
T h e applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.138/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Gwalior (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 376D, 506, 34 of IPC 2 and Sections 3/4 of POSCO Act and Section 66-E, 67-B of I.T. Act.
Allegations against the present applicant is that he committed rape with the prosecutrix on 22/06/2021. The prosecutrix due to fear did not inform about the incident to anyone. On 09/06/2022, she lodged an FIR against the applicant upon which the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376D, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POSCO Act and Section 66-E, 67-B of I.T. Act has been registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has further argued that the incident took place on 22/06/2021 whereas after lapse of one year, the FIR was lodged on 09/06/2022 because the friend of the applicant namely Vivek Singh lodged an FIR against the brother and the father of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that applicant is a young boy aged about 21 years and if he will sent in custody, then it will spoil his future career, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
O n the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard the rival contentions and perused the case diary. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on perusal of record, it appears that the the incident took place on 22/06/2021, however, the FIR was lodged on 09/06/2022, after lapse of one year and for such inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, no plausible explanation has been given, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Consequently, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail, on 3 executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Authority. He shall further abide by other conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2022.07.12 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 12:48:20 +05'30'