Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.22452/2018
(Ajay S/o Rameshchandra Dayma V/s. State of M.P.) 6
Indore, Dt.24.07.2018
Shri D.K.Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner Ajay
S/o Rameshchandra Dayma.
Shri Rakesh Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the objector. Heard with the aid of case diary.
As per statement made by the accused/petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court in connection with Crime No.101/2018 under Sections 366, 323 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Sailana, Ratlam. No other bail application has been preferred by him. His prayer for the same relief was turned down by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam vide order dated 06.06.2018.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.05.2018, Lakhan S/o Ramprasad intimated the Police Sailana that his younger sister had gone to Ratlam to appear in B.A. Final exam. She left home at 6.30 in the morning but did not return till 2.00 in the afternoon. They tried to search but could not find any clue. The Police registered a Missing Person Case No.20/2018 and assigned inquiry to Sub Inspector Sapna Rathore. On the next day i.e. 25.05.2018 she recovered the missing person, who revealed in her statement that she had gone to Jaora to see her cousine, who had met with an accident. On return when she alighted at Bus Stand Sailana, at about 1.00 in the afternoon her neighbour Ajju @ Ajay (petitioner) offered her a lift to drop her at home. She accepted the offer and sat on the motorcycle but he instead of dropping her at HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.22452/2018 (Ajay S/o Rameshchandra Dayma V/s. State of M.P.) 6 home turned the motorcycle towards Ratlam. He threatened her to keep quite and revealed that he wants to marry her. She screamed then he put a country made pistol and forced her to keep quite threatening that in case of hindrance he will kill her. Frightened by the threat she kept quite. The petitioner took her to Ujjain. On finding an opportunity she again screamed. Hearing her clamour people gathered there. The petitioner again slapped her and asked her to keep quite but this time she dared to jump from the motorcycle. The accused/petitioner also fled from the spot by motorcycle. She informed her father Avantilal and uncle Mukesh Chandel on phone and intimated them that the accused had kidnapped her for the purpose of marriage against her will. The Police registered Crime No.101/2018 under Sections 366, 506 & 323 of IPC and investigated the same. During investigation the Police produced the prosecutrix before the Judicial Magistrate, who after completing requisites recorded her statement. She reiterated incident/allegations made before the Police.
3. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the prosecutrix is major. They both fall in love and wanted to marry. Family of the prosecutrix was not agree for the same, therefore, they opted Arya Samaj tradition and got married. The prosecutrix entered into marriage voluntarily. Learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrated some photographs and a Certificate of Arya Samaj Sanchar Nagar, Indore certifying the marriage of the prosecutrix with the petitioner, the applications along with affidavits submitted for solemnizing marriage and mark-sheet and few other documents of both the petitioner and the prosecutrix HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.22452/2018 (Ajay S/o Rameshchandra Dayma V/s. State of M.P.) 6 showing that they are major. In photographs, which are showing marriage rituals like garlanding and offering sweets to each other, the prosecutrix appears in a pleasant mood.
4. Learned counsel for the objector so also the learned public prosecutor has argued that both the prosecutrix and the petitioner fall under the prohibited degree. Petitioner is cousine of the prosecutrix, therefore, their marriage is void. Emphasizing on the statement of the prosecutrix given before the Police so also before the Judicial Magistrate after her recovery, they have pleaded vehemently that the prosecutrix was forced on the gun point to enter into the marriage. Even after the incident petitioner is threatening the prosecutrix and her family members continuously for dire consequences and pressurizing them to take back the report. He has also threatened to defame the prosecutrix and her family in society by circulating photographs of so called marriage. One of such photograph has been sent to the brother of the prosecutrix. The petitioner is President of Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha and is closely associated with the ruling party and is a very influential person, therefore, the Police is not apprehending him and granting him opportunity to get anticipatory bail from the court even after persistent requests of the family and society of the prosecutrix. The objector has reasons to believe that after getting free through anticipatory bail, the petitioner will force them to take back the report, therefore, they requested for cancellation of bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has demonstrated letter No.44A/18 dated 25.06.2018 sent by the S.H.O., Police Station Sailana to the Advocate General stating that on inquiry neighbours HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.22452/2018 (Ajay S/o Rameshchandra Dayma V/s. State of M.P.) 6 of the petitioner have not confirmed marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. Statements of Siddhpal S/o Karansingh Sisodiya, Manish S/o Satyanarayan Chandel and Dilip S/o Gangaram Gavali are annexed with this letter to support the contention.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in MANU/SC/1021/2010 (Para 122 & 128): AIR 2011 SC 312, Joginder Kumar V/s. State of U.P. and others reported in MANU/SC/0311/1994 (Para 8,9 & 17): AIR 1994 SC 1349 and Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others V/s. State of Punjab reported in MANU/SC/0215/ 1980 (Para 39-50) : AIR 1080 SC 1632,. In these judgments Hon'ble the Supreme Court has discussed and has expounded the principles and parameters or norms to be kept in mind while considering the petition for anticipatory bail.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgments of Arnesh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar reported in MANU/SC/0559/2014 (Para 13) : AIR 2014 SC 2756, Rohit Chauhan V/s. State NCT of Delhi reported in MANU/DE/1468/2013 (Para 1, 4 & 5), Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in MANU/MH/2646/2014 (Para 2 & 4), Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth V/s. State of Gujrat and another AIR 2015 SC 3090 but all these cases are distinguishable on facts as Arnesh Kumar (supra) case is related to the dispute between husband and wife and allegations were made of cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.22452/2018 (Ajay S/o Rameshchandra Dayma V/s. State of M.P.) 6 of dowry which are punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued certain directions to deal with arrest in such type of cases, in Rohit Chauhan (supra) case the complainant remained for last three years in the company of the petitioner. Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane case (supra) was fall out of broke up relationship. In that case the petitioner made physical relation with the complainant on the promise of marriage. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth case (supra) was a matter of cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court which was cancelled by the High Court. The learned Sessions Court had granted bail considering the fact that the complainant had remained in the relation with the opponent for a considerable long period and thereafter made allegation of rape, emotional black mail and threat against him, but later withdrew allegation of rape.
8. Learned counsel further invited my attention towards provisions of the Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937 and submitted that marriage through Arya Samaj tradition is a valid marriage.
9. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the record available in the case diary, so also the authorities cited by the counsels.
10. In the case in hand, the prosecutrix has made certain serious allegations against the petitioner. On every occasion she has reiterated her allegations. Before the Court also, she stood by her statement. Veracity of the documents/photographs produced by the petitioner is to be inquired and ascertained.
11. In the backdrop of the allegations made by the prosecutrix HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.22452/2018 (Ajay S/o Rameshchandra Dayma V/s. State of M.P.) 6 and easy availability of advance technology, considering the nature of offence, nature of allegations and also keeping in mind the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar (supra), which is restated in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171 that the relief of anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a rule but only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated and there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty and other facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it appropriate to accede the prayer of the petitioner, therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(Virender Singh) Judge ns Digitally signed by Neeraj Sarvate Date: 2018.07.30 10:39:14 +05'30'