Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rinku @ Madan Bhatia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2019
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.30983/2019
(Rinku @ Madan Bhatiya Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 11.09.2019
Ms. Monika Mishra, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Aditya Singh Ghuraiya, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Ranjeet Khanvilkar, counsel for the complainant. Case diary is available.
This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No.473/2019 registered by Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 452, 354 & 34 of IPC.
It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is maternal uncle. A false case has been registered against the present applicant. It is submitted that the incident is said to have taken place on 2.07.2019 for which the report has been made on 5.7.2019. The complainant has given a written application to the police authorities alleging therein that Rinku Bhatia along with others by using force has tried to remove her clothes and has tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant. It is further submitted that certain allegations have been levelled in the complaint/FIR. She has submitted that with respect to the incident a report has been made by them to the police authorities but that was not taken into consideration at the relevant time and when the complainants came to know about reporting to police against them they immediately approached the police 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.30983/2019 (Rinku @ Madan Bhatiya Vs. State of M.P.) authorities and got registered the FIR. It was alleged that under Section 452 of IPC there is a punishment for house trespass after preparation for hurt. In the present facts and circumstances of the case no such offence is made out. It is further submitted that another FIR has been registered at Crime No.124/2019 for the offences registered under Sections 498-A , 406, 323, 354-A and 34 of IPC at Police Station, Women NIT, Faridabad wherein bail application no.3506/2019 has been allowed granting interim bail. It is alleged that punishment for all the offences is less than seven years, therefore, she has prayed for grant of bail in the light of directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2014 Cri.L.J. 3707. She has relied upon the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of (Kuldeep Saket vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C. No.14923/2015, (Bhola Jatav and other vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C. No.17289/2019 and (Munna @ Sitaram vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C. No.18719/2019.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State as well as complainant have opposed the bail application stating that the application of the co-accused Bhawna Khatri has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2019 being M.Cr.C. No.30236/2019. The counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court to the observations made by this Court while rejecting the previous application, which is reproduced below:-
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.30983/2019 (Rinku @ Madan Bhatiya Vs. State of M.P.) "Counsel for the complainant has further pointed out that an FIR has been lodged by the accused persons at Faridabad, which is registered at crime No.124 of 2019 for offences registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354-A and 34 of IPC. The aforesaid FIR is reported by Bhavna Khatri. The date of FIR is 18/7/2019 and in the present case date of FIR is 2/7/2019. Thus, the second FIR clearly appears to be afterthought. It is further submitted that the accused persons are threatening them and saying that "you apply for grant of bail and come to Faridabad will see you". Thus, has prayed for dismissal of the application."
It is further submitted that the investigation is still pending in the matter, therefore, he has prayed for rejection of the application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that investigation is pending, this Court does not deem it fit to allow this application at this stage. The case laws relied upon by the applicant's counsel are on factually different footings, therefore are of no help to the applicant. Therefore, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE van VANDANA VERMA 2019.09.14 11:47:36 +05'00'