Hariom vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7106 MP

                             1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  M.Cr.C. No.51954/2021
                  Hariom Vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated: 08-11-2021

      Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate for applicant.

      Shri Manish Nayak, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

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

filed for grant of bail. The fourth application was dismissed by order

dated 2/9/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.43039/2021.

The applicant has been arrested on 20/2/2021 in connection

with Crime No.364/2020 registered at Police Station Gormi, District

Bhind for offence under Sections 376, 506, 109, 450 of IPC and

Sections 67 and 67A of IT Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

prosecutrix has been examined and she has not supported the

prosecution case.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that

according to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was raped by the

applicant on 17/10/2018 and videograph was also prepared. On

21/11/2019 the marriage of the applicant was fixed and the applicant

and his father were demanding Rs.5,00,000/- and when the

prosecutrix expressed her inability to pay the said amount, then her

intimate and indecent videograph was made viral. It is submitted that

the police has also seized the intimate / indecent videograph of the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.51954/2021 Hariom Vs. State of M.P.

prosecutrix. Although the prosecutrix has stated that she had not seen

the said video, but she has accepted her mobile numbers.

Furthermore, Pappi Khan had also seen the intimate / indecent video

alongwith the prosecutrix and she has not been examined so far. It is

further submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi vs. State

of Gujarat reported in (2019) 17 SCC 523, even if the prosecutrix

turns hostile, still the accused can be convicted with the help of

circumstantial evidence and the video, which was made viral by the

applicant, is an incriminating circumstance which shows involvement

of the applicant.

Considering the circumstantial evidence, 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 2021.11.09 10:48:46 +05'30'