Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajrani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 October, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-39195-2021
Rajrani Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated : 23/10/2021
Ms. Sangeeta Pachauri, Counsel for applicant.
Shri R.K. Awasthi, Counsel for State.
Case diary is available.
This second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for grant of bail. In first bail application, the applicant was
granted interim bail for a period of 60 days by order dated 22.04.2021
passed in M.Cr.C. No.12502/2021. Thereafter, M.Cr.C.
No.12502/2021 was disposed vide order dated 19.07.2021 and the
information given by learned Special Judge MPDVPK Act Gwalior
(M.P.) vide letter dated 30.06.2021 that the applicant has surrendered
on 30.06.2021 was taken on record.
The applicant has been arrested on 14.02.2021 in connection
with Crime No.491/2019 registered by Police Station Thatipur Distt.
Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 366-A,
368, 370, 376, 354, 342, 323 of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act
and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.
It is submitted by Counsel for the applicant that applicant is
seriously ill and she is suffering from HIV and diabetes.
By order dated 25.09.2021, the health status report of applicant
was called.
The health status report dated 30.09.2021 has been received
from the Central Jail, Gwalior, according to which the applicant was
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-39195-2021
Rajrani Vs. State of M.P.
already suffering from HIV and diabetes prior to her admission in the
Central Jail, Gwalior and it is also mentioned that she is being given
treatment through A.R.T. Center of J.A.H Gwalior and jail dispensary
and at present is physically stabled.
It is submitted by Counsel for applicant that according to
prosecution case, a minor girl aged about 15 years went missing and it
was suspected that co-accused Lalu Pandit might have taken her away.
Accordingly, missing minor girl was searched in District Saharanpur,
U.P. and Haryana and with the help of Cyber Cell, the minor missing
girl was recovered on 28.01.2021 from the house of co-accused
Rajesh @ Rinku and the marriage album of minor girl and co-accused
Rajesh @ Rinku was also recovered. Thereafter, minor girl was
handed over to custody of her mother. The further case of prosecution
is that the prosecutrix met with a person at Delhi railway station who
enquired whether she wants to marry or not and on her consent, the
said person took her and he handed over her to one Babli who kept
her in her house from July to August and thereafter Babli handed over
the prosecutrix to present applicant with instruction that she should
arrange for marriage and accordingly the applicant arranged marriage
of minor prosecutrix with co-accused Rajesh @ Rinku.
It is submitted by Counsel for applicant that although in the
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of prosecutrix, it was
alleged that the prosecutrix had voluntarily married co-accused Rajesh
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-39195-2021
Rajrani Vs. State of M.P.
@ Rinku but is true that at that time she was minor and her consent
was immaterial. However, after referring to the statement of
prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, it is submitted that
it is clear that applicant had merely arranged for marriage of
prosecutrix. It is further submitted that it is true that the incident had
taken place in the month of July 2019 and the applicant could be
arrested only on 14.02.2021 i.e. after near about more than 1½ years
but applicant is aged about 60 years and she is suffering from HIV and
diabetes and she requires treatment and she is ready and willing to
abide by any stringent condition which may be imposed by the Court
including that of furnishing cash surety of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is further
submitted that the main accused Rajesh @ Rinku has already been
granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated
05.06.2020
passed in M.Cr.C. No. 14485/2020. The trial is likely to
take sufficiently long time and applicant undertakes to appear before
the trial Court without any default.
Per contra, the application is opposed by the counsel for the
State.
Considering the medical report dated 30.09.2021 received from
the Central Jail Gwalior as well as considering the allegations coupled
with the fact that the main accused Rajesh @ Rinku has already been
granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated,
05.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14485/2020 and without
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-39195-2021
Rajrani Vs. State of M.P.
commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is
directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing cash
surety of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Only) or in the alternative on
depositing original title-deed(s) of her own [not Rin Pustika] of the
immovable property worth of more than the said amount, as directed
by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharo @ Shahrukh vs. The
State of M.P. by order dated 06.9.2021 passed in SLP (Cri.)
No.6321/2021 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court
to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
It is made clear that single default in appearance before the Trial
Court, or in case of registration of new offence, this bail order shall
automatically come to an end and the cash surety so furnished by the
applicant shall automatically stand forfeited without any reference to
the Court.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021
in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of
bail be sent to the complainant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Aman
AMAN TIWARI
2021.10.23 17:38:11
+05'30'
