Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prashant Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 1 September, 2017
(1)
M.Cr.C. No. 9720/2017
(Prashant Parashar Vs. State of M.P.)
1/9/2017
Shri Prashant Shama, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Kamal Jain, Government Advocate for the
respondent-State.
This is applicant's first application, under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of bail.
After being arrested in connection with Crime No.87/2017 registered at Mahila Police Station Padav, District Gwalior (MP) for the offences punishable under sections 354C and 507 read with 34 of the IPC and sections 11(ii), 11(v), 12, 13 and 15 of the POCSO Act, the applicant is in judicial custody since 19/8/17.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he along with other co-accused persons not only coerced the daughter of complainant, aged about 13 years, for sending a nude pic on Facebook by threatening her with dire consequences, but later, viralled the same on Internet.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offences are triable by JMFC. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that applicant is recipient of any material or pic. It is further submitted that cousin of the applicant was studying in the same school with the complainant, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. Besides, learned counsel has also pressed into service the decision in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another ((2014)8 SCC 273) to contend that no notice under 41-A of the Cr.P.C. has been served on the applicant and, as such, the guidelines as laid down in the case of Arnesh (2) M.Cr.C. No. 9720/2017 (Prashant Parashar Vs. State of M.P.) Kumar (Supra) have not been adhered to in the instant case. That apart, it is submitted that applicant is a student and his examination for recruitment to the post of Police Constable is scheduled to be held on 7/9/17. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for bail is made.
In response, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application contending that looking to the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. He has invited attention of this Court to the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she has categorically stated about the complicity of the applicant in the offence.
Taking into consideration the gravity of offence coupled with the fact that offences of such nature concerning women and girls of tender age are on a surge on social media affecting not only the victim but also the society at large, in the opinion of this Court, no indulgence is warranted. Further, notice as contemplated under 41A of the Cr.P.C. is required to be given when arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41 thereof, whereas in the instant case the police Authorities had sufficient reasons to make an arrest under section 41(1) of the Cr.P.C. as the facts and circumstances of the case clearly fall within the purview of section 41(1)(b)(ii)(a) and (d). That apart, procedural lapses, if any, by the Police Authorities would not mitigate the gravity of the offence committed by the applicant or make him entitled to bail. As such, the decision in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) can be of no assistance to the (3) M.Cr.C. No. 9720/2017 (Prashant Parashar Vs. State of M.P.) applicant while considering his prayer for grant of bail. Moreover, the investigation is still pending and is at the initial stage.
In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application is dismissed. However, in the wake of the submission that applicant seeks to appear in Police Constable recruitment examination, he is set at liberty to move an application for interim bail, which shall be dealt with and decided on its own merits.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and)