Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Marathe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.27869/2018
( Sunil Marathe Vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated: 14.08.2018
Shri Sameer Seth, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri D.K. Paroha, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Sandeep Mahavar, counsel for the objector. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent State prays for further time to make the FSL report with regard to the mobile phone of petitioner available.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently opposed the adjournment on the ground that earlier, two opportunities had already been granted to the State for the same purpose.
In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to grant any further opportunity to the State for the said purpose.
Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Sunil Marathe in crime no.109/2018 registered by P.S.-Padamnagar, District- Khandwa under Sections 342, 376 and 506 of the IPC.
His first application for the same relief had been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by order dated 06.07.2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.24246/2018.
Since, his first application was dismissed as withdrawn, this second application is being considered on merits.
As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a 19 years old major girl studying in college. She was acquainted with the petitioner. On 11.03.2018, petitioner called the prosecutrix to 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27869/2018 ( Sunil Marathe Vs. State of M.P.) meet him near river Aabana. When the prosecutrix went there, petitioner took her to an abandoned house in a field and raped her under the threat to kill. On 12.05.2018, petitioner took the prosecutrix to Khandwa. He disclosed that he had prepared a video of rape by his mobile phone and if the prosecutrix did not marry the petitioner, he would post the video on social media. Under the aforesaid threat, the petitioner married the prosecutrix in Arya Samaj on 10.05.2018. After that, petitioner started to pressurize the prosecutrix into meeting him; therefore, she disclosed the matter to her parents and the first information report came to be lodged on 31.05.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix was admittedly a major, mature girl on the date of the offence. She is said to have gone to river to meet the petitioner of her own free will and accord. She also entered into marriage with the petitioner at Arya Samaj on 12.05.2018. Before the marriage, she gave an affidavit in support of voluntary nature of the marriage. In the FIR, she has not stated that the petitioner had shown any obscene videos of rape to her. Only in the statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., has she stated that he had shown videos to her from a distance. The video was seized immediately after the arrest of the petitioner on 02.06.2018; however, till date, mobile phone has not been sent to Cyber Cell, Bhopal. The FIR has been lodged after a delay of about 2 months. After entering into a marriage ceremony of her own free will and accord, either the prosecutrix has changed her mind or 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27869/2018 ( Sunil Marathe Vs. State of M.P.) has lodged this FIR under pressure from her parents; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the objector on the other hand have opposed the application mainly on the ground that the prosecutrix was forced into entering matrimony under threat of uploading obscene video of rape on social media, which explains the delay in lodging the FIR and the affidavit of the prosecutrix filed in Arya Samaj.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail at this stage but an opportunity will have to be granted to the prosecution to make an application for cancellation of bail, in case, positive report of FSL in respect of video of rape in the mobile phone of the petitioner, is received.
Consequently, this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Sunil Marathe, is allowed.
It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case, for complying with the 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27869/2018 ( Sunil Marathe Vs. State of M.P.) conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The prosecution shall be free to move an application for cancellation of bail, in case, positive report of FSL in respect of video of rape in the mobile phone of the petitioner, is received.
Certified copy as per rules.
(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge sh Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 2018.08.17 11:30:54 +05'30'