Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnu Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2022
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
Bench: Arun Kumar Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 912 of 2022
Between:-
VISHNU KUMAR LODHI S/O SHRI KHUBIRAM
LODHI , AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT VILLAGE LAKHANPUR POLICE
STATION RUDAWAL DISTRICT BHARATPUR
RAJASTHAN (RAJASTHAN)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH
SHRI SIDDHARTH BENDEL, LEARNED ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION OBEDULLAGANJ RAISEN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM A S/O NOT MENTION NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAMJI PANDEY, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
SHRI A.K. GUPTA, LEARNED ADVOCATE )
This appeal is coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 03/08/2021 passed by Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raisen in Bail Application No. 292/2021, whereby by the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2The appellant is in custody since 28/07/2021 in connection with Crime No.200/2021, registered at Police Station Obedullaganj, District-Raisen for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 384, 376 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and under Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A s per the prosecution case, it is alleged that appellant developed friendship with the prosecutrix on whats app and called her Dholpur, where he made physical relationship with her and make video of the said incident, thereafter, on threatening her to viral the said video on social media, he committed sexual intercourse with her several times.
Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix is a major lady. The FIR is delayed about two and a half years and no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecutrix in this regard. The prosecutrix has already been examined before the trial Court and looking to her court statement and conduct of the prosecutrix, it appears that she was the consenting party. The appellant is in custody since 28/07/2021 and trial would take considerable time. Hence, learned Senior counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside of the impugned order and grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/objector opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the court statement and conduct of the prosecutrix, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside.
It is directed that the appellant shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 3 Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
Certified copy/e-copy-as per rules.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE skt Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2022.05.13 17:23:44 IST