Priti Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4392 MP

                                  1
  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27839 OF 2021
       (Priti Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)



Indore, Dated 17.08.2021
     Shri Arihant Kumar Nahar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
     Shri Sameer Verma, learned PL for the non-applicant
No.1/State.

     Shri Dayanath Pandey, learned counsel for the non-
applicant No.2 Manoj Singh.

                               ORDER

Submissions were made on application filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of bail granted to non-applicant No.2 Manoj Singh in Crime No.183/2021 registered at Police-Station - Y.D. Nagar, District - Mandsaur (MP) for the offence committed under Sections 376, 506 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecutrix in her application has stated that she was being physically exploited by non-applicant No.2 Manoj by promising to marry her in future but never kept his promise and did not marry her. Thereafter she approached various police authorities regarding her grievance against non-applicant No.2. Subsequently, the non-applicant No.2 married the applicant in Court by executing a notarized document but never kept the applicant with him as his wife. The applicant later on realized that marriage on the basis of a notarized document is not recognized by law and therefore she is not the legal wife of non-applicant No.2 and that she had been defrauded and

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27839 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)

physically exploited by non-applicant No.2 on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter she lodged a report against non-applicant No.2 which was registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 294, 354 and 342 of IPC. The non-applicant No.2 procured an order of anticipatory bail in MCRC No.50875/2020 on the basis of previous FIR registered under Section 498-A of IPC. Misusing this liberty, the non-applicant No.2 on 24.03.2021 again threatened the applicant and assaulted her by causing injuries to her private parts which led to lodging of FIR No.183/2021 under Sections 376, 506 and 323 of IPC. Thereafter the non- applicant No.2 Manoj Singh filed anticipatory bail application which was allowed by this Court on 05.05.2021 passed in MCRC No.21043 of 2021.

In the application filed under Section 439(2) Cr.PC for cancellation of bail, it has been stated that non-applicant No.2 had procured the order of anticipatory bail by deliberately concealing the criminal antecedents and the accusation made against him by the applicant and had misused the liberty so granted to him on earlier occasion. The non-applicant No.2 had defrauded the applicant by creating a forge and fabricated notarized deed of marriage and later on refused to keep the applicant with him on the pretext of his earlier marriage and various other excuses.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that such promises were false promise and the non-applicant No.2 was not inclined to marry the applicant from the very initial stage

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27839 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)

and such an act amounts to rape as contemplated in the case of Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 2013 SC 2071 in which it has been stated that although the second anticipatory bail was granted on the ground of there being no injuries on the person of prosecutrix but it does not mean that no incident had occured at all. On these grounds the anticipatory bail granted in MCRC No.21043 of 2021 had been sought to be cancelled.

Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 Manoj Singh has filed number of documents in support and through which it has been sought to be shown that the applicant / prosecutrix herself had withheld the factum of her earlier marriage and it was the non-applicant No.2 who infact had been defrauded by prosecutrix. It has been further pointed out that the ground of false marriage would be available to only such prosecutrix who herself is eligible for marrying but the prosecutrix having got married earlier for more than once with different persons and not having dissolved her earlier marriage was not eligible to get married. The contents of this document is Annexure-A/3 which are statements of prosecutrix made under Section 164 of Cr.PC in which it has been sought to be shown that the prosecutrix herself knew that she was married to the non- applicant No.2 and contrary to her averments made in the connected MCRC No.10946 of 2021 that she had not lodged the report under Section 498-A of IPC against the non- applicant No.2 Manoj Singh. He has further pointed out that

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27839 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)

anticipatory bail in MCRC No.21043 of 2021 was bound to be allowed by this Court on 05.05.2021 because since the allegation of prosecutrix that she had started bleeding due to injuries on her private parts were found to be factually incorrect as no injuries were found on her person in the MLC conducted on her.

Detailed submissions have been made in this matter and there is repetition of these allegations in the connected MCRC No.10946 of 2021 which is also an application for cancellation of bail of non-applicant Manoj Singh.

This Court has rejected the aforesaid application and it would be appropriate to reproduce the portions of order passed in the aforesaid application. The excerpts are as under:

"Considered.

In the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by this Court while allowing anticipatory bail application of the applicant Manoj Singh, in respect of Crime No.69/2020, the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant had been noted that the report pertaining to rape has been lodged 3 years after the alleged incident. It was also brought to the knowledge of the Court that an enquriy had been conducted in the matter in which close relatives of the prosecutrix had stated that prosecutrix had earlier been married twice prior to marriage with the applicant and this fact of earlier marriages was withheld by the prosecutrix who had proclaimed herself to be unmarried woman. ASP Garoth, in his enquiry report has stated that the prosecutrix had earlier blackmailed her former spouses. Regarding another FIR under Section 498A of IPC, this Court had observed that the prosecutrix has levelled allegations of harassment to her by Manoj after solemnizing of the marriage.

Learned counsel for the prosecutrix, during course of submissions has vehemently stressed that the report under Section 498A of IPC was fabricated report

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27839 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)

and the prosecutrix had not lodged any such report. It is argued that the aforesaid FIR has been shown to have been lodged on the basis of Dehatinalishi, however no Dehatinalishi has been filed which would have exposed Manoj because her signatures are not there in any such Dehatinalishi.

The aforesaid submission has been vehemently denied on behalf of Manoj. Learned counsel Shri Dayanath Pandey, appearing on behalf of Manoj has drawn Court's attention to the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before JMFC in respect of her complaint under Section 498-A of IPC. The prosecutrix has signed the aforesaid document in which she has specifically stated that she had got married to Manoj in Ratlam Court, but thereafter Manoj was avoiding her and then prosecutrix complaint to S.P. and DIG by way of written application then Manoj got married to her. Even after this Manoj continued to avoid her and due to such harassment prosecutrix had consumed petrol near S.P. Office.

These statements have been recorded on 14.9.2020 and FIR is numbered as 426/2020. The period of incident has been shown to be from 27.6.2020 to 9.9.2020.

Thus, the submissions of the prosecutrix that she had not lodged any report under Section 498-A of IPC appears to be incorrect because she had recorded her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C in respect of the same FIR.

Regarding her complaint of rape against Manoj which is registered as crime No.69/2020, it has been found that the date of incident has been shown to be 1.1.2018 and allegations were that Manjoj had promised to marry her and had established physical relations with her which he continued to do so for 3 years. As already stated this Court had granted bail to Manoj considering the submissions that report has been lodged 3 years after the incident and in the enquiry conducted by ASP, it was found that prosecutrix was already married twice whereas, she in her written complaint had shown herself to be a single unmarried woman.

Annexure A/1 is the enquiry report which has been submitted after recording the statements of Dharmendra, the cousin of prosecutrix, Ravi Pawar, the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, Deepak, the elder bother of the prosecutrix, Dinesh, the earlier husband of the prosecutrix, Ratanlal, father of Dinesh, Chandabai,

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27839 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)

mother of Dinesh. All of them have stated that prosecutrix was first married at Rajgarh then her Natra was performed at Gautampura and third marriage was solemnized in Ratlam. The two persons with whom prosecutrix had got married are namely Deepak and Dinesh. In the enquiry report it has also been found that the prosecutrix was impersonating herself as police constable by dressing herself in police uniform.

All these facts were taken into account while granting anticipatory bail to Manoj. Thus, there appears to be no impropriety contained therein.

The prosecutrix has stated that after grant of anticipatory bail to Manoj and Manoj had threatened her on 03.02.2021 report pertaining to which was not lodged by police and therefore a written complaint was sent on 08.02.2021 which has been received by the police. The written complaint Ex.P/8 has been addressed to SHO Ratlam in which it has been stated that while the prosecutrix was teaching kids on her house. Manoj came on the motor bike and barged inside her house and started abusing her and told her to withdraw the complaint or else he would kill her.

Regarding the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that this written complaint dated 08.02.2021 was also inquired into. The Inquiry Officer who is an Inspector has stated that due to the fact that Manoj was granted anticipatory bail and was not sent to jail, hence this written complaint has been filed by the prosecutrix in which exaggerated statements have been made against Manoj and the enquiry however remains pending. It further appears that after the written complaint dated 08.02.2021, the prosecutrix had again lodged an FIR against Manoj on 27.03.2021 under Sections 376, 506 and 323 of IPC which is registered as an FIR No.183/2021. In the aforesaid FIR, copy of which has been filed by the prosecutrix and allegations had been levelled by her that on 24.03.2021 when prosecutrix had come to Mandsaur for recording her statements, Manoj came with his friends and assaulted her and took out his pen and pierced her private part with the cap of pen and abusing her at the same time for lodging the FIR against him. The prosecutrix has stated that she started bleeding from her private parts due to injuries to her. Manoj thereafter filed the anticipatory bail application which was again allowed by this Court on 05.05.2021 considering the fact that although the outer dress of the prosecutrix contained blood stains, however the origin of

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27839 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)

blood did not appear from any part of the body of prosecutrix as there were no signs of injuries found on her person.

Thus, it appears that on both occasions, the non- applicant No.1 Manoj has been granted anticipatory bail on proper and valid grounds and there are many infirmities in the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against Manoj.

Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has drawn Court's attention to the Supreme Court Judgment of Sudha Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2001 4 SCC 781 in which it has been held that it is important for Courts to recognize the potential threat on life and liberty of victims / witnesses, if such accused is released on bail. A perusal of the aforesaid case shows that bail was granted to an accused who was alleged to be a contract killer and a sharp shooter employed to murder the husband of applicant and the bail had been granted on a very liberal terms such as liberty to be released on personal bond and allowing to furnish the surety in a month after release from jail, his antecedents were ignored and the potential to repeat his acts were also ignored.

It is quite clear that the aforesaid order was passed by the Supreme Court keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As far as the present case is concerned, the prosecutrix masquerading in police uniform has been shown to have been withheld her earlier marital status. It has not been found that she had obtained divorce from her earlier spouses.

Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix has not been given an opportunity to appear before Inquiry Officer. However, the prosecutrix could easily file the affidavits of her own kins who would have supported her submissions that she was an unmarried lady and had never got married with Dinesh or Deepak or any other person or persons. This lapse on her part cannot remain unnoticed.

After due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for cancellation of bail of non-applicant No.1 Manoj. Accordingly the application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC stands rejected".

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27839 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)

The aforesaid order exhaustively covers all the points raised by the applicant in the present application as well and the reasons for disposing of the present application would be quite identical to the above acts of excerpted part. It can be seen that the anticipatory bail was granted to the non-applicant Manoj Singh considering the anomaly between the allegations levelled on him and the MLC report of prosecutrix and no impropriety is apparent therein and, thus, there is no reason for cancellation of anticipatory bail passed by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2021 in MCRC No.21043 of 2021 in respect of applicant Manoj Singh. Hence, the application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC for cancellation of bail stands rejected.

As in the order passed in MCRC No.10946 of 2021, it is directed that a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police who may launch disciplinary proceedings against the non-applicant No.2 Manoj Singh, as it appears that he may have breached the service conditions of maintaining high moral standards in violation of MP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE

Arun/-

Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2021.08.23 18:45:01 +05'30'

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27839 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)