Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Singh Kichoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 23 October, 2017
(1)
M.Cr.C. No. 11242/2017
(Shubham Singh Kichoriya Vs. State of M.P.)
23/10/2017
Shri A.S.Bhadouria, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri A.K.Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.360/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 386, 467, 376 of the IPC and sections 67 and 74 of the IT Act Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that concealing his true identity, he befriended the prosecutrix and after taking her obscene photographs and videos threatened to malign her by putting the same on social sites. He exploited the prosecutrix for a period of 1½ years physically, mentally and financially and compelled her to hand him her mother's ATM card, using which, he withdrew an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- from her mother's account. He also obtained gold ornaments of her mother from the prosecutrix under threat and when the bank account got exhausted, he blackmailed the prosecutrix for more money threatening to kidnap her younger brother.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated. According to him, the alleged FIR is not signed by the prosecutrix and there is a delay of about 1½ years in lodging the FIR. He further submitted that allegations pertaining to section 376 IPC are not made out as it is a clear cut case of consent. For this, he invited attention to several whatsapp messages exchanged between the applicant (2) M.Cr.C. No. 11242/2017 (Shubham Singh Kichoriya Vs. State of M.P.) and the prosecutrix. He further submitted that the offence under the IT Act are also not made out in view of the fact that there is no evidence on record to establish that any photograph of the prosecutrix was viralled by the applicant on any Site. Besides, referring to MRI report (Annexure P/13), learned counsel submitted that applicant has suffered brain hameorrhage and is under treatment. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. According to him, the receipts of finance company where the applicant had pledged the ornaments of prosecutrix's mother have been recovered from the applicant. He also invited attention of the Court to the corroborative statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that applicant has suffered brain haemorrhage and is undertaking treatment for the same, trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant though on comparatively stringent conditions.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant namely Shubham Singh Kichoriya be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with two solvent and local sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each to the satisfaction of the (3) M.Cr.C. No. 11242/2017 (Shubham Singh Kichoriya Vs. State of M.P.) trial Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and)