Ajay Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3793 MP

                                1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       MCRC-37188-2021
               Ajay Jatav Vs. State of MP and anr.

                   Through Video Conferencing

Gwalior, Dated : 31-07-2021

      Shri Avdesh Sharma, Counsel for the applicant. He is not in

proper uniform.

      Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi, Counsel for the respondent No.

1/State.

Shri Sumer Singh Sisodia, Counsel for the respondent No.

2/complainant.

Case diary is available.

This is fourth application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for

grant of bail. Third application of the applicant was dismissed for

want of prosecution by order dated 22.07.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.34898/2021.

The applicant has been arrested on 31.01.2021 in connection

with Crime No.240/2019 registered by Police Station Rannod Distt.

Shivpuri for offence punishable under Section(s) 363, 376, 366 of

IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

prosecutrix has been examined and she has stated that physical

relationship had developed only after she attained majority and got

married to the applicant.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-37188-2021 Ajay Jatav Vs. State of MP and anr.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant. It is

submitted by Shri Tripathi that as per the report of hospital, the

prosecutrix gave birth to a child on 16.09.2020 and thus, it is clear

that she became pregnant in the month of December, 2019 itself and

date of birth of the prosecutrix is 01.02.2002 and, therefore, it is clear

that on the date of becoming pregnant, the prosecutrix was minor.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

specifically in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court

in the case of Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala Vs. State of

Gujarat passed on 12.01.2021 in Cr.A. No.1919/2010 as well as in

the case of Independent Thought Vs. Union of India and another

reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800, by which the exception 2 to Section

375 of IPC has been read down and it has been held that physical

relationship with a wife below the age of 18 years is a rape, no case is

made out for grant of bail.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge

Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2021.07.31 17:39:32 +05'30'