Sonu Namdev @ Sultan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4409 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4409 MP
Judgement Date : 17 August, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sonu Namdev @ Sultan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 August, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                             1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     M.Cr.C.40769/2021
             Sonu Namdev @ Sultan v. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated : 17.08.2021

      Shri H.K. Goyal, Counsel for the applicant through video

conferencing.

      Shri Nitin Goyal, Counsel for respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.218/2021 registered at Police Station Bhonti Distt. Shivpuri for

offence under Sections 376, 506 of I.P.C.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in fact the

applicant had given an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the husband of the

prosecutrix and when he demanded money back, he has been falsely

implicated. It is submitted that even from the FIR, it is clear that the

offence of rape is alleged to have been committed by the applicant on

two occasions i.e. about one and half months prior to the date of FIR

and secondly, on 10.7.2021. It is submitted that so far as the

allegation of rape about one and half month prior to the date of FIR is

concerned, it is admitted position that no complaint was made by the

prosecutrix either to her husband our to anybody and even FIR was

not lodged. It is also clear from the FIR as well the statement of the

prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC that when the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.40769/2021 Sonu Namdev @ Sultan v. State of M.P.

applicant on 10.7.2021 demanded money, then it is alleged that he

committed rape. It is submitted that if the FIR is taken on its face

value, then there was no occasion for demand of money and thus the

contention of the applicant that there was money transaction between

the applicant and the husband of the prosecutrix, and in order to

avoid payment of the said amount, he has been falsely implicated is

plausible. It is further submitted that applicant is a reputed member of

the society and in case, he is taken in custody, then it would tarnish

his reputation. The applicant is ready and willing to co-operate with

the investigation and there is no likelihood of his absconding or

tempering with prosecution case.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the State

Counsel. However, after going through the police case diary, it is

fairly conceded that no complaint was made by the prosecutrix about

commission of rape by the applicant on the first occasion and even on

10.7. 2021. It is specifically alleged in the FIR as well as in the

statement recorded under section 164 of CrPC that the applicant had

demanded money.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

Counsel for the State.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the

parties through video conferencing.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.40769/2021 Sonu Namdev @ Sultan v. State of M.P.

The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the

case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN

PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the

States to constitute a High Powered Committee to consider the

release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme

Court has observed as under :

"The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID - 19).

Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled. We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are undertrial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.

It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.40769/2021 Sonu Namdev @ Sultan v. State of M.P.