Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Bharadwaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2021
Author: B. K. Shrivastava
1 MCRC-2090-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-2090-2021
(PRAKASH BHARADWAJ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-03-2021
Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Dharmendra Kaurav, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.
Shri Anil Kumar Upadhyay, counsel for the objector.
Heard on application filed on 12.1.2021 under section 438 of CrPC on
behalf of applicant Prakash Bharadwaj, who is under apprehension of his
arrest in connection with Crime No.298/2020, registered at Police Station
Chachai, District Anuppur, under sections 376, 376(2)(n), 450 of IPC and
section 67 of I.T.Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for applicant that the prosecutrix is a
married lady having 9 years old child. The FIR has been lodged after one
year. The mobile location and the record of ATM withdrawal shows that on
1.11.2019 the applicant was not present at the place of incident. He was at
Bilaspur, therefore, he should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
The counsel also relied upon the order dated 17.6.2020 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.14123/2020 and Judgment dated 10.8.2018 delivered in Criminal
Appeal No.4525/2018. Aforesaid order and judgment have been passed by
this Court in other cases. In addition to aforesaid cases, the counsel also
placed reliance upon a decision rendered in the case of Dr.Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2019, SC
The counsel for State strongly opposed the application. It is submitted
by the State that the seizure of mobile is required and the custodial
interrogation of applicant cannot be denied. Hence, anticipatory bail should
not be granted.
It is an admitted position that the applicant is working in CISF
Department as Constable. It is alleged that on 1.11.2019 first time he entered
Signature Not
SAN
Verified in the house of prosecutrix and made sexual relations with the prosecutrix
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI GUNJAL
Date: 2021.03.22
18:01:02 IST
2 MCRC-2090-2021
after getting her consent by giving false assurance of marriage. Thereafter on
several times, they made sexual relationship. The prosecutrix is a married
lady and a mother of 9 years old child. She did not obtain the divorce from
her husband. Therefore, prima facie it can be said that she was not in the
position to marry with the accused inspite of that she made sexual relations
with the accused with her consent. ATM withdrawal dated 1.11.2019 also
prima facie supports the contention of the applicant that he was at Bilaspur
on the said date. It is alleged that the accused gave the threat to the
prosecutrix to viral their photographs. But the accused did not viral any
photographs. The prosecutrix also remained in jail in a case related to the
forged caste certificate.
Hence, looking to the overall circumstances of the case, it can be said
that no custodial interrogation as well as no recovery is required from the
accused.
Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is
allowed. It is ordered that the applicant will surrender before the Investigating
officer within 15 days from the order of this Court. Thereafter, he shall be
released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond worth Rs.50,000/-(Rupees
Fifty Thousand) and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction
of the Arresting Officer. In case the challan is filed, this order shall also be
followed by the trial court.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
TG /-
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI GUNJAL
Date: 2021.03.22
18:01:02 IST
