Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munna @ Sitaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2016
MCRC-18719-2015
(MUNNA @ SITARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
13-01-2016
Shri A.M. Trivedi, learned senior counsel with Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajnish Choubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
The documents filed on behalf of the applicant with Covering Memo No.327/16 are taken on record on due consideration. Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in Crime No.969/15 registered at Police Station Seoni, District Seoni, against him for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D and 506 of the IPC and 7 read with 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Prosecution allegations against the applicant are that on 27.9.2015 at about 8 pm the informant, aged about 16 years was strolling on the roof of her house. At that time, the applicant came over the roof and pressed her breasts with intent to outrage her modesty and threatened to kill her if she reports the matter to her parents.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had been the tenant of the informant's father circa 2005 to 2009 and that the informant's father and her family members are ill-disposed towards him and his family members on account of dispute over arrears of rent, in support of which, the applicant has filed his own affidavit with the bail application. Referring to some photographs, he further submits that the informant and the applicant are neighbours and there is five to six feet width of alley between their houses across one end to other end of their houses. Under the circumstances, it is quite impossible for the applicant to cross over the alley to reach the roof of the informant's house. Referring to some affidavits, he further submits that on the same day before the alleged incident, a dispute arose between the informant's mother and the applicant's wife. Thereafter, the informant has lodged the false report at the behest of her parents. It is lastly submitted by him that the applicant is a 45 years old man, whereas the informant is aged 16 years. Thus, the applicant is in the age group of her father. Under the circumstances, it is inconceivable that a man of 45 years old would outrage the modesty of the informant who is in the age group of his own children. Upon these submissions, learned counsel claims that this is a totally false case. Therefore, the applicant be granted the relief of anticipatory bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and upon perusal of the affidavits filed by the neighbours in support of the applicant and seeing the photographs of the houses of the informant and the applicant, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant with certain conditions. Allowing the application, he is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of this case on or before 03.02.2016 for interrogation and submission of documentary proofs of his permanent residence and contact numbers, if any. The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicant in the aforesaid crime, in that event he be released immediately on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousands only) with one solvent surety in like amount to his satisfaction. Further, the applicant is directed to abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to appear before the Investigating Officer on the stipulated period, then this bail order shall stand automatically cancelled.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE