Madhya Pradesh High Court
Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2019
1 CRA-5535-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-5535-2019
(GOLU @ RAJENDRA VIJAYVARGIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 30-07-2019
Shri Pramod Kumar Thakre, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vinod Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
None for the respondent No.2/complainant despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1.
Case diary perused and arguments heard.
This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 24.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in B.A.No.2167/2019; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.419/2019 registered at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 365, 368, 376 (2)(N), 370, 371, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, who apprehend their arrest in the crime.
As per the prosecution case, on 02.04.2019 co-accused Nikhil abducted the prosecutrix and took her to his house situated at Kanchanpur were co-accused Nikhil committed rape with her and also made video of his act and on the basis of that video he blackmailed the prosecutrix. On 05.04.2019 co-accused Nikhil and Sunita took the prosecutrix to Jabalpur Railway Station from where co-accused Sunita and one other person took the prosecutrix to Gangapur City, Rajasthan where co-accused Nandkishore and Pramod meet them, thereafter they took prosecutrix to Pramod’s rented house where they confined prosecutrix for four days. Thereafter, co- accused Nikhil and Sainki also came there thereafter co-accused Nikhil, Sainki and Sunita took prosecutrix to Kota where they kept her in the house of Nand Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 01/08/2019 17:19:49 2 CRA-5535-2019 Kishore and they forcibly married prosecutrix with appellant Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya and took Rs.2,25,000/- from appellant Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya, thereafter appellant Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya sexually exploited the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix informed the incident to her grand mother Saroj Ben on phone. On that, police recovered the prosecutrix from the possession of appellant Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya and registered Crime No.419/2019 at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 365, 368, 376 (2)(N), 370, 371, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant filed an application before the trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The prosecutrix voluntary performed marriage with the appellant. Other co-accused as well as prosecutrix cheated with the appellant and co-accused Nikhil and Sunita took Rs.2,25,000/- from appellant regarding marriage of the prosecutrix with the appellant. Prosecutrix was major and she was also involved in the crime. Appellant is innocent and he did not know the fact that the co-accused Nikhil and Sunita forcibly took the prosecutrix at Kota to perform marriage with him. In this regard, appellant also lodged report against the co-accused Nikhil, Sunita and Nand Kishore at Police Station Atru District Bara. The appellant is ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial. Hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant purchased the prosecutrix from co-accused Nikhil, Sunita and Nandkishore Vijayvargiya for Rs.2,25,000/- and also sexually exploited her. So, he should not be released on anticipatory bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Hence, the Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 01/08/2019 17:19:49 3 CRA-5535-2019 appeal is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 01/08/2019 17:19:49