Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat @ Bhaarat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 21 November, 2017
M.Cr.C.No.19830/2017
Bharat alias Bharat vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated : 21.11.2017
Shri A.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel, for the
applicant.
Shri Vivek Bhargava, learned Public Prosecutor,
for the respondent/State.
On due consideration, the documents filed on behalf of the applicant vide document No.9989/2017 are taken on record.
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.464/2017 registered at Police Station Kampoo Gwalior against him and two other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution, on 17.09.2017 the prosecutrix lodged the report that on the night of 29.8.2017 co-accused Rajkumar took her into the flat of his elder brother saying that he would marry her. He kept her in the flat in confinement for a period between 29.8.2017 to 16.9.2017 and during that period he sexually exploited her. The applicant and co- accused Virendra are the brother and the Jija of co- accused Rajkumar. During that period they would come to the flat and threatened to kill her in case she M.Cr.C.No.19830/2017 Bharat alias Bharat vs. State of M.P. reports the matter to any person. On 16.09.2017, she escaped from the captivity of co-accused Rajkumar. Thereafter, on 17.9.2017 she lodged the report.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a married woman. On 28.08.2017, her mother lodged the missing person report of the prosecutrix at the aforesaid police station, stating that she is missing since 27.8.2017 at about 5.30 pm. He submits that on 29.8.2017 the prosecutrix made her statement in the missing person case that she had gone to meet her friend without informing her mother. Therefore, she lodged the missing person report of her under a premonition. He submits that on 29.8.2017 the prosecutrix was taken on supurdaginama by her mother Vimla and husband Virendra. Let it be noted that in support of the said submissions, the attention of this Court is drawn towards the report of the missing person case, the statements of prosecutrix and others recorded during the inquiry of the said case. He further submits that the prosecutrix is a married woman despite that she wants to marry co-accused Rajkumar deserting her husband. Upon his refusal, she has lodged the false report. He submits that at the most, it may be a case of consensual sex between the prosecutrix and co- accused Rajkumar. He submits that the applicant and co-accused Virendra are falsely implicated in the case M.Cr.C.No.19830/2017 Bharat alias Bharat vs. State of M.P. by the prosecutrix because they are the brother and the Jija of co-accused Rajkumar. He submits that they are falsely roped in the case is proved again by the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that the applicant and co-accused Virendra had also sexually exploited her by thrusting a piece of cloth in her mouth and tying her hands whereas she has not narrated the said facts in her FIR and she has stated in the FIR only that the applicant and co-accused Virendra threatened to kill her in case she reports the matter to anyone else. He submits that looking to allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, his custodial interrogations are not required. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that he is a permanent resident of Gwalior city. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer mainly on the ground that prosecutrix has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that the applicant had also sexually exploited her when she was kept in captivity by co- accused Rajkumar.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and upon the M.Cr.C.No.19830/2017 Bharat alias Bharat vs. State of M.P. perusal of all the material on record, but without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to applicant Bharat with certain conditions. Hence, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 07.12.2017 for interrogations and submission of documentary proofs of his permanent residential address and contact numbers, if any. The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicant in the case, in that event he will release him on bail immediately upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-(forty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the same amount to his/her satisfaction. Further, the applicant will 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 within the stipulated time period, then this bail order shall stand automatically cancelled in respect of him.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge van VANDANA Digitally signed by VANDANA VERMA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P.S., postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=28633918296af0b3fa82b31b23b084797287 VERMA 46dc68b10fd53e8bb396b58dcf57, cn=VANDANA VERMA Date: 2017.11.22 14:24:15 +05'30'