Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shantanu Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2023
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
M.C.R.C. No.22451/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 22nd OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22451 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHANTANU AGRAWAL S/O SWADESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED
R/O 14 NEHRU CLOTH MARKET BAIRAGARH BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANU MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION MAHILA THANA DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(SHRI RAHUL SOLANKI - GOVT. ADVOCATE AND SHRI ANIL OJHA -
OBJECTOR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of anticipatory bail.
2 M.C.R.C. No.22451/20232. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR/crime No.72/2023 dated : 24.04.2023 at P/S - Mahila Thana, Indore, registered u/S 377, 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as DPA). Anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Indore, [M.P.] vide order dated 09.05.2023.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant/accused and the prosecutrix are husband and wife, who got married in Bairagarh on 09.05.2022. Father of prosecutrix and other relatives gave distinct valuable gift to the applicant and his family members in the marriage. The applicant/husband and his family had demanded a luxury car as well to which the family of the prosecutrix denied. On 14.05.2022, father of the prosecutrix held a party in Hotel Essentia, Indore. The prosecutrix and the applicant stayed there at night, whereby the applicant failed to consummate the marriage and right after that he committed unnatural offences upon the prosecutrix against her will. On being denied by the prosecutrix, the applicant/husband started abusing verbally and physically assaulting her. The same act of committing unnatural offence and on being denied, abusing verbally and physically assaulting the prosecutrix was done by the applicant/husband at several instances. The applicant/husband used to physically hit the vital and private body parts of the prosecutrix. The applicant/accused used to intimidate the prosecutrix and her family members in furtherance of demand for money. On 18.09.2022, the applicant had called the parents of the prosecutrix to Bhopal. When they 3 M.C.R.C. No.22451/2023 came, the applicant/husband abused them verbally and pushed the prosecutrix out of his house alongwith her parents. Since, then the prosecutrix has been living in Indore in her maternal home, where the applicant/husband keeps on bothering her by abusive messages and intimidate the prosecutrix for getting her and her family members booked in a false SC/ST case. The FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix in P/S - Mahila Thana, Indore, on 24.04.2023 under the aforementioned provisions against the applicant and his family members.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no case under the above mentioned provisions are made out. He also submitted that the entire prosecution story is false. The allegations leveled up by the prosecutrix are frivolous, fake, and fabricated. The learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecutrix had left the house herself on being objected by the applicant against the video call by the prosecutrix with Dinesh Sankala and Manish Sharma. That the efforts were put on by the applicant to bring back the prosecutrix to his home several times. The applicant had also filed application u/S 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1988 (Annexure A-4) for the restitution of the conjugal rights. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the notice, dated 11.03.2023 (Annexure A-5), sent by the prosecutrix to the applicant, it is mentioned that the applicant is impotent and it is worth mentioning in there is not even a single whisper regarding unnatural sexual act. The act of unnatural offence is a result of afterthought. There was an attempt of mediation on 18.04.2023, whereby the prosecutrix demanded and intimidated for Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rs.2.5 Crores) and if not given she will implicate him 4 M.C.R.C. No.22451/2023 u/S 377 of IPC. The learned counsel has further submitted that the applicant has been harassed by SHO Jyoti Sharma, P/S - Mahila Thana and SHO Kamlesh Sharma, P/S - South Tukoganj being relative of the prosecutrix. The learned counsel submitted that the Section 377 of IPC is leveled against him just so that he may not be able to take the benefit of Arnesh Kumar V State Of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satendra Kumar Antil V CBI [2022 Live Law SC 577]. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Rashmi Chopra V The State Of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2019 SC 2297]; Preeti Gupta V State Of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 677] and Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai V State of Gujarat [MANU/GJ/0291/2018]
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the applicant/husband has committed cruelty both physically and mentally upon the prosecutrix by committing unnatural offence on prosecutrix against her will, assaulting her physically, giving her life threats and by demand of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rs.5 crores). The learned counsel also submitted that the applicant/husband is a resident of Bhopal and may probably abscond. If he is enlarged on bail, then he might intimidate the prosecutrix and her family members alongwith he can temper the evidences. The learned counsel prayed that the applicant/husband shall not be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the objector has supported the prosecution story, the averments made by the Government Advocate and has further placed reliance upon the bunch of screenshots presented on behalf of prosecutrix.
5 M.C.R.C. No.22451/2023The objector further submitted that the applicant/husband has several connection with politicians and Senior Police Officers and on basis of which he intimidates the prosecutrix. It is quite apparent that the Police being influenced by the applicant has not taken any required action against the applicant for a long time since the lodging of FIR. On 10.06.2022, the prosecutrix was examined in Tripti Multi Speciality and Trauma Center, Lalghati Square, Bhopal and it was found that there was mild odema on labia and scratch marks on the right breast of the prosecutrix. The applicant has criminal past apart from this offence, other crimes No. are 558/2017, 224/2019 and 236/2019. Offence u/S 294, 323 and 506 are registered at P/S - Bairagarh against the applicant and offence No.558/2017 is disposed off by the Court on the basis of compromise. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, then he may temper the evidence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. The objector has placed reliance upon the case of Pravendra Dubey V State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC No. 27573/2022, order dated 5.07.2022]; Rajdeep Gupta V State Of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC No.49324/2022 order dated 03.11.2022] and Manoj Gupta V State Of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC No.43358/2022, order dated 09.09.2022]
7. Guideline given by the Apex Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), Rashmi Chopra (Supra) are not applicable in this case because the instant case is also registered u/S 377 of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. In the case of Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai, the Coordinate Bench of Gujarat High Court observed that the 6 M.C.R.C. No.22451/2023 victim was subject to oral sex forcibly by her husband, but has laid down that except the sexual perversions of sodomy, buggery and bestiality, all other sexual perversions, would not fall within the sweep of Section 377 IPC, and quashed the charges in FIR u/S 376 and 377 of IPC. But the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pravendra Dubey (Supra), Rajdeep Gupta (Supra), Manoj Gupta (Supra) has rejected the anticipatory bail application in the same facts and circumstances of this case.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. If the applicant is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, the possibility of interference in the investigation cannot be ruled out. Therefore, taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
9. Accordingly, application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE Shruti SHRU Digitally signed by SHRUTI JHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=46283ba6a215e3d40573a7f0ced 0632c8b8e41b29405387437111f0f1c897b TI JHA 84, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=975D0201B09C38473541A 4907EE0732D1EA079B8EE35C9E2D19845 AF26B0FBF4, cn=SHRUTI JHA Date: 2023.06.26 18:41:10 +05'30'