Piyush Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6601 MP

                                                                   1                           MCRC-40081-2021
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    MCRC-40081-2021
                                                  (PIYUSH AGARWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                  Jabalpur, Dated : 21-10-2021
                                        Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                        Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
                                        Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, learned P.L. for the respondent-State.

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, learned counsel for the objector Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant Piyush Agrawal apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.138/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 377, 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per prosecution case, on 23/07/2021 complainant, wife of applicant lodged a report at Mahila Police Station, Bhopal averring that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 16/02/2021 and thereafter she lived at her matrimonial house with applicant and his family members i.e. co-accused

Gopal Prasad Agrawal father-in-law and Madhu Agrawal mother-in-law of the complainant. But the behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her. They used to harass her and demanded dowry. On 22/02/2021 she and the applicant went to Mauritius where applicant forcefully committed unnatural intercourse with her and when she objected, applicant assaulted her. On 14/03/2021 applicant again forcefully committed unnatural intercourse with her and assaulted her. When complainant tried to inform about the illegal act of applicant to co-accused Gopal Prasad Agrawal (father- in-law) and Madhu Agrawal (mother-in-law), they did not pay any heed to it and misbehaved with her. Complainant informed her mother about the behavior of the applicant and other co-accused persons on phone and when the parents of the complainant came to her matrimonial house, they were Signature Not Verified SAN insulted by co-accused Gopal Prasad Agrawal and Madhu Agrawal and were Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.10.22 18:55:08 IST 2 MCRC-40081-2021 insisted to take the complainant with them. At that time co-accused Gopal Prasad Agrawal also demanded Rs.1.50 crore from her parents as dowry. On that complaint, Mahila Police Station, Bhopal registered Crime No.138/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 377, 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant and co-

accused. Thus, the applicant is apprehending his arrest in the crime.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. Learned counsel further submitted that after lodging the FIR when Police officials asked the complainant for the medical examination conducted by a government medical practitioner, the complainant refused to get herself medically examined, which clearly shows that complainant made false allegation regarding unnatural intercourse against the applicant. However complainant filed a medical certificate along with her objection. It has been obtained by the complainant from a private medical practitioner to falsely implicate the applicant in the crime. It is alleged that applicant committed unnatural intercourse with complainant on 22/02/2021 & 14/03/2021, while complainant lodged the report on 23/07/2021 and there is no plausible explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR. The complainant even sent a message to applicant on 12/04/2021, wherein there is no mention about applicant having committed unnatural intercourse with her, which clearly shows that the allegation regarding unnatural intercourse is an afterthought. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant wanted to live separately with the applicant, which was refused by applicant because his father and mother are old aged persons and he cannot leave them alone, due to which complainant lodged false report against applicant and his family members. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance

Signature Not Verified SAN on the judgment judgment passed by Bombay High Court in the case of

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.10.22 18:55:08 IST 3 MCRC-40081-2021 Chintan Yogeshbhai Kalolia Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2019 SCC Online Bom 6938 and orders passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.22791/2019 (Mahesh Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C.No.13624/2017 (Abhishek Jain Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C.No.9979/2021 (Dr. Anup Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C.No.759/2021 (Ashutosh Chakradhar Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C.No.17869/2021 (Devendra Kumar Karan Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C.No.8890/2021 (Dr. Sunil Manohar Singh Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C.No.42740/2019 (Kripal Rajak Vs. State of M.P.) & M.Cr.C.No.13854/2021 (Kusumlata Pathak Vs. State of M.P.).

Learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposed the prayer

and submitted that applicant and co-accused persons used to harass the complainant and demanded dowry. Applicant committed unnatural intercourse with the complainant and also assaulted her. From the medical examination report given by Dr. Shruti Shah it is clear that the applicant committed unnatural intercourse with the complainant, so he should not be released on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention learned counsel for the objector placed reliance on the order passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep Singh Kadyan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Bail Application No.189/2020 & CRLM.A.1589/2020), an order passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (CRM-M No.15491/2020) and an order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.48330/2018 (Shalabh Sen Vs. State of M.P.).

In the above-mentioned bail orders, as relied upon by the learned counsel of the applicant, respective Courts have not laid down any guideline regarding granting anticipatory bail. In fact, the respective Courts have granted bail to the accused persons considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. So, on the basis of those orders, the applicant is not entitled to get anticipatory bail in this case.

It is alleged that applicant used to harass the complainant and Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.10.22 18:55:08 IST 4 MCRC-40081-2021 demanded dowry. Applicant also committed unnatural intercourse with the complainant and assaulted her. The medical examination report filed by complainant along with her objection also supports the allegation of complainant that applicant committed unnatural intercourse with her. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

as

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.10.22 18:55:08 IST