Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.14423 OF 2018
(Jai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 16.04.2018
Mr. Surendra Gupta, counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Virendra Khadav, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
This is the first bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as the applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.181/2018 registered at Police Station-Aerodrome, District- Indore, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
As per prosecution story, the applicant manipulated the prosecutrix and sexually abused her repeatedly since the year 2017 under the false pretext of marrying her. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged against the applicant by the prosecutrix stating interalia that the applicant came in contact with her in the year 2015 and had solicited and developed intimacy with her. Thereafter, the applicant had taken her to his maternal uncle's house. She was emotionally manipulated. Taking advantage of such situation, he had sexually abused her against her wishes. She was exploited under the pretext of marriage, which was never happened. She was under
mental distress and acute depression, therefore, had gone to New Delhi on 27.03.2018. Again the applicant approached her and promised her to solemnize marriage. With that assurance he took her to Indore and left at Indore Railway Station. Under such circumstances, the instant FIR has been lodged.
Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. He submits that earlier also an FIR was lodged against the applicant by the mother of the prosecutrix with the allegation of abduction. The prosecutrix though appeared before the trial Court on 30.01.2018 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.14423 OF 2018 (Jai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) but did not reiterate the incident and also about the FIR lodged by her against the applicant. He contends that it is a false allegation against the applicant and therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Per Contra, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State opposes the bail application with the contention that her statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code is well explicit and corroborate with the allegations in the FIR. That apart, the investigation is in progress. He further contends that it is a case of sexual exploitation with a false promise of marrying her. He also contends that such type of crimes are increasing day by day in the society and if the applicant will be granted anticipatory bail, a wrong message shall go to the entire society. Hence, prays for rejection of the anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Having perused the case diary, the documents placed on record and also the statement recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code of the prosecutrix, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant does not deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present bail application under-Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is hereby rejected.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Arun/-
Arun Nair 2018.04.18 10:54:36 +05'30'