Rahul Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2600 MP

    1      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      M.Cr.C. No.29340/2021

Rahul Pal Vs. The State of MP and another

Through Video Conferencing Gwalior, Dated:22/06/2021

Shri Harshwardhan Singh Sisodiya, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri BPS Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Case diary is available.

This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 27/5/2021 in connection

with Crime No.1118/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Distt.

Guna for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and

Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012.

According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix eloped with

the applicant on 15/12/2020 and went to Indore where they

performed marriage. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant

that there was no inducement on the part of the applicant for

compelling the prosecutrix to leave her house. The applicant is in jail

from 27/5/2021 and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time

and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with

prosecution case.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is clear from the statement 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29340/2021 Rahul Pal Vs. The State of MP and another

of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., that the

applicant and the prosecutrix were having love affair and accordingly

the prosecutrix left her house and thereafter, the applicant and the

prosecutrix went to Indore where it is alleged that they performed

marriage.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Supreme Court in the case of Anversinh @ Kiransinh

Fatesinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.

1919/2010 decided on 12.01.2021. has held as under:-

"17. The ratio of S. Varadarajan (supra), although attractive at first glance, does little to aid the appellant's case. On facts, the case is distinguishable as it was restricted to an instance of "taking" and not "enticement". Further, this Court in S. Varadarajan (supra) explicitly held that a charge of kidnapping would not be made out only in a case where a minor, with the knowledge and capacity to know the full import of her actions, voluntarily abandons the care of her guardian without any assistance or inducement on part of the accused. The cited judgment, therefore, cannot be of any assistance without establishing: first, knowledge and capacity with the minor of her actions; second, voluntary abandonment on part of the minor; and third, lack of inducement by the accused."

Apparently there is an inducement on the part of the applicant

for the prosecutrix to leave her parental home. Further, in the light of

the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of

Independent Thought vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2017)

10 SCC 800, it is clear that physical relationship with a minor wife is 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29340/2021 Rahul Pal Vs. The State of MP and another

also an offence. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun*

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.06.24 13:41:52 +05'30'