Imran Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2056 MP

                                           1
                        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             M.Cr.C. No.25224/2021
                             (Imran Khan vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 28.05.2021

      Heard through videoconferencing.

      Shri Rajmani Bansal, counsel for the applicant.

      Shri B.S. Gour, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for

grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Aron,

District Guna in connection with Crime No.203/2021 registered in

relation to the offences punishable under Sections 366, 511, 506, 376(2)

(n), 509, 450 of IPC.

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the

case. He has not committed the offence in any manner. The prosecutrix is

a consenting party to the act. As per the prosecution story, one and half

years back also the physical relationships were developed between the

applicant and the complainant/prosecutrix, but no complaint was made by

her and as per the prosecution story a month back when the physical

relations were developed the complaint was made against the present

applicant pointing out the fact that he was threatening the complainant by

showing her photographs and threatening was given to make them viral. It

is submitted that the statement has been recorded under Section 164

before the trial Court, therefore, there is no apprehension that he will

tamper the prosecution witness. The applicant is the first offender and

looking to the present scenario of COVID 19 pandemic, he prays for grant

of bail. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25224/2021 (Imran Khan vs. State of M.P.)

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of

Jharkhand, reported in 2021(1) SCC (Cri) 50, wherein the Hon,ble

Supreme Court has considered the similar aspect and has stated that in

such circumstances offence under Section 376 (2) (n) cannot be said to be

constituted.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application

stating that there are specific allegations against the present applicant. He

has read over the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. He could not give any explanation regarding that why no

complaint was made for one and half years when the physical relations

were developed between the accused and the prosecutrix.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and

looking to the present scenario of COVID 19 pandemic, but without

commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate

to allow this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The

applicant is directed to be released on bail, subject to verification of the

fact that he is the first offender, and on furnishing a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of

the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer /trial Court,

as the case may be with submission of written undertaking and he will

abide by all terms and conditions of the different circulars, orders as well

as guidelines issued by the Central Government, State Government as

well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25224/2021 (Imran Khan vs. State of M.P.)

etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID -19) pandemic and he will

have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the

bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case

may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as

to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police

Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of

which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the

trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of

the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

7. The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned

Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would

be the duty of the State counsel to send E-copy of this order to SHO of

concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned

who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25224/2021 (Imran Khan vs. State of M.P.)

In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before

releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be

undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima facie, if it is found that he is

having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action

including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured,

otherwise applicant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be

given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence.

E- copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of

this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made

clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for

practical purposes in respect of this order.

(VISHAL MISHRA) V. JUDGE van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2021.05.28 19:23:18

-07'00'