Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Kumar Gaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50478 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
VIRENDRA KUMAR GAUR S/O SHRI BHAGWAN
DAS GAUR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB VILLAGE AND
POST SILWANI TEHSIL SILWANI DISTRICT
RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION OBEDULLAGANJ DISTRICT
RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT/STATE BY SHRI AMIT PANDEY, PANEL LAWYER)
(RESPONDENT/OBJECTOR BY SHRI S.K. DAWRA, ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.307/2022 registered at Police Station Obedullaganj, District Raisen, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 376(2)(H) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and prosecutrix have spent time in live-in relation and in this regard, a written agreement (Annexure-D/1) was also executed between them for living like 2 husband and wife. He submits that subsequently by blackmailing the applicant, prosecutrix started extracting money from him. He submits that later on, the applicant came to know about the fact that the proseuctrix is already married and her husband along with an Advocate are trying to create pressure upon him by giving threat. He submits that after asking about her husband by the applicant, the prosecutrix disclosed the fact that he was her ex-husband who used to behave with her badly and therefore, she left him. He submits that thereafter the relation between the applicant and prosecutrix became unpleasant and prosecutrix started creating pressure upon the applicant and also made a complaint against him to the police and in pursuance to the said complaint, an FIR got registered against the him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is in the habit of making allegations against the males and her modus operandi for extracting money is that first she develops physical relation and thereafter she blackmails the person. He submits that earlier also an FIR vide Crime No.106/2021 got registered by the prosecutrix under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC along with various sections of IPC against a person namely Fardeen Ahmad saying that he developed physical relation with her on the false assurance of marriage. He submits that on going through the photographs of prosecutrix filed by him, it is clear that she is basically a call girl and used to charge money from the persons with whom she spent time. He has also filed certain documents showing that the applicant has made a complaint before the police showing apprehension that some offence would be registered against him by the prosecutrix. He submits that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no case under Section 376 of the IPC is made out against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated. On these submissions, he prays 3 that the applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the objector has also opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court reported in a case reported in (2013) 16 SCC 651 [State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naushad], this application deserves dismissal.
Having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of case diary and the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court in number of occasions saying that if a male and female after coming in live-in relation spent time like husband and wife and subsequently the male refuses to live with female or to marry with her, no case of rape is made out, prima facie, I am of the opinion that in the present case, the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish DEVASHISH MISHRA 2022.11.12 16:22:48 +05'30'