Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 MCRC-49784-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 49784 of 2021
(VIVEK VISHWAKARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 30-11-2021
Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the objector.
This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by
the applicant for grant of bail.
T h e applicant has been arrested on 21/07/2021 by Police Station
Baikunthpur, District Rewa in connection with Crime No.255/2021 registered
in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 376 & 506 of I.P.C,
Section 3/4 of POSCO Act and Section 67 & 67-A of I.T. Act.
It is alleged that the applicant is in custody since 21.07.2021, charge-
sheet has already been filed and there is no further requirement of custodial
interrogation of the applicant. He has placed reliance upon an order dated
14.10.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
M.Cr.C.No.39823/2019, wherein, an application under similar provisions of
act was being allowed on the ground that the statements of the prosecutrix,
her father and other material witnesses were recorded and they have not
supported the prosecution story. He has further placed reliance in another
order dated 10.03.2016 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
M.Cr.C.No.11588/2015, wherein, under similar circumstances, the application
was allowed considering the DNA report. He has further relied upon a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kasi vs. State
through Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station Madurai
District reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 529 on the ground that for
maintaining judicial propriety that when in similar circumstances, the
applications are allowed by the Coordinate Benches, the same should have
been followed by this Court also. It is also argued that the applicant as well as
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2021.12.03 10:34:37 IST
2 MCRC-49784-2021
the victim were known to each other, as a result of which, they have
developed the physical relations. No nude photograph was taken by the
present applicant, therefore, no offence was committed by him. He is ready
to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court
while considering the bail application. On these grounds, a prayer is made to
enlarge the applicant on bail.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for State has vehemently opposed the
application stating that the age of the victim is 17 years, therefore, it cannot be
a case of consent. There is specific allegation against the present applicant
and other co-accused of committing offence and by taking nude photographs
and threatening to make them viral, they have committed the offence. There is
specific allegation against the present applicant of committing rape of the
victim. In such circumstances, no case is made out for grant of bail to the
applicant.
So far as the orders of the Coordinate Bench with respect of similar
offence is concerned, it the discretion of the Court to consider the cases of
grant of bail. The bail applications are to be considered looking to the facts
and circumstances of each case and looking to the facts and circumstances
of the present case, this Court does not find it appropriate to enlarge the
applicant on bail. The judgment with respect of following of judicial propriety
is not applicable in the cases of bail. In the present case, as there are specific
allegation against the present applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail
to the applicant at this stage. The application is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2021.12.03 10:34:37 IST
