Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Haldkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-36018-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-36018-2021
(SHUBHAM HALDKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Riyaz Mohammad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Reji Mathai, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri Ranjeet Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the objector.
This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The applicant is in custody since 19.06.2021 in connection with Crime No.
291/2021 registered at Police Station- Tilwara, District-Jabalpur (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Section 376 and 376(2)(N) of IPC.
As per prosecution case, on 19.06.2.021, prosecutrix aged about 30 years,
lodged the report before the police station, Tilwara. It is alleged by her that since past
three months, she had made friendship with applicant/accused through social media.
After some days, they met and applicant/accused proposed her to marry. Thereafter,
applicant/accused called her at his house on 18.03.2021, where applicant/accused
committed intercourse with her on false pretext of marriage. Thereafter,
applicant/accused left her at her house. On 23.03.2021, applicant/accused called her
at Sukun resort in Tilwara, where he again committed intercourse with her on the
same ground. Lastly, on 01.05.2021, applicant/accused committed intercourse with
her at Sukoon resort and after that refused to marry with her.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in this case. Applicant/accused and prosecutrix are acquainted with each
other through social media and started meeting then applicant/accused was trapped by
the prosecutrix in love affair and demanded money showing poor financial condition,
applicant/accused helped her two or three times for friendship. Prosecutrix is already
married and having children. She concealed this fact from the applicant/accused.
Prosecutrix made pressure upon him to marry looking to his good service and
economic condition but he refused to do so. Thereafter, prosecutrix consistently
started threatening him and threatened to implicate him in a false case. Prosecutrix is
Signature Not Verified
30 years educated lady, she is totally consenting party in this matter. She stayed with
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.13 18:30:57 IST
2 MCRC-36018-2021
applicant/accused at Sukoon resort. She is well aware of the activities between a man
and a woman in isolate hotel room and she has also stated that she is entering into the
hotel's room without any undue influence. He submitted a document vide annexure A-
3 at the time of staying at Sukoon resort. Applicant/accused is aged about 27 years.
He is an employee in E clinical works India Private Limited. He has no previous
criminal antecedent. He is in custody since 19.06.2021, charge sheet has been filed.
It is time of COVID-19 Pandemic, due to which conclusion of trial will take time.
There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the
prosecution. Applicant/accused is breadwinner of his family. If he is kept in custody
for an unlimited period then future of his family will be spoiled. On these grounds,
learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant/accused. In
support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the
following judgments:-
1. Rakesh Choudhary Vs. State of MP (2019 SCC On Line MP 2839)
2. Govind Singh Rajput Vs. State of MP and another (2020 SCC On Line
MP 360)
3. Umesh Lilani Vs. State of MP and another (2019 SCC On Line MP
1685).
4. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others {(2019)18 SCC 191}.
Learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the bail application.
Learned counsel for the objector while opposing the bail application submits
that applicant/accused committed intercourse with the prosecutrix on the false
pretext of marriage. Thereafter, applicant/accused refused to marry with her.
Therefore, applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of bail.
Considering the contention of both the parties and the fact that prosecutrix is
aged about 30 years young lady and she is well educated, applicant/accused was in
relationship with prosecutrix for three months, she did not disclose this fact to his
parents during this period, applicant/accused is in custody since 19.06.2021, charge
sheet has been filed, it is time of COVID-19 Pandemic, due to which conclusion of
trial will take time, applicant is breadwinner of his family, and also this fact that
there is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the
prosecution, so it is not appropriate to keep the applicant-accused in jail whole the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
trial, therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, application of the present
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.13 18:30:57 IST
3 MCRC-36018-2021
applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it
is hereby allowed.
It is directed that the applicant-Shubhan Haldkar shall be released
on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties of the amount of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned
trial Court for his appearance before it on the dates given by the concerned
Court.
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 trial;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the fact 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 him 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.
In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the
applicant shall also comply the rules and norms of social distancing.
Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
suo motto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following
direction to the jail authority :-
1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the
applicant by the jail doctor before his release.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
2 . The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.13 18:30:57 IST
4 MCRC-36018-2021
Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
3 . If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Virus
disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing
him in appropriate quarantine facility.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
L.R.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.13 18:30:57 IST
