Durg Vijay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5514 MP

                                                                             1
                                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                                          BEFORE
                                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                                    ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022

                                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17688 of 2022

                                                Between:-
                                                DURG VIJAY SINGH S/O SHRI TARA SINGH, AGED
                                                ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TRANSPORT R/O
                                                1650, KESHVPURAM, SECTOR-H, AWAS VIKAS,
                                                KALAYANPUR, KANPUR, KANPUR NAGAR (U.P.)
                                                (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                                                (BY SHRI AJAY GUPTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAJIV
                                                MISHRA, ADVOCATE)

                                                AND

                                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                                POLICE STATION AYODHYA NAGAR NOT
                                                MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                                                (SHRI A.K. RAWAT, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE AND
                                                SHRI Y.M. TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)

                                             This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                       following:
                                                                              ORDER

This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.43/2022 registered at Police Station- Ayodhya Nagar, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the applicant is that he has abducted the daughter of complainant Siddhi Gupta, who is aged about 20 years and has kept her under wrongful confinement.

It is argued that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case, he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is submitted that Siddhi Gupta is a major and she has preferred a writ petition before this Court Signature Not Verified SAN being Writ Petition No.5101/2022 in the name of Ms. Siddhi Gupta Vs. State of Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2022.04.20 16:31:38 IST Madhya Pradesh and others; wherein, she has marked her presence before this

Court on 09.03.2022 and the complainant of this case i.e. father of Siddhi Gupta has also marked his presence through Video Conferencing and he was also a caveator in the Writ Petition. The petition was finally disposed of on 09.03.2022 recording the statement of Siddhi Gupta; wherein, she has pointed out that she has

never been kidnapped or abducted rather her parents are trying to get her marriage solemnized forcefully and she wants to study and does not want to solemnize marriage. She wants to prepare for IAS Examination. It is pointed out that she has left her house on her own and not in the pressure of anyone. The father also marked his presence through Video Conferencing and has leveled allegations but this Court has disposed of the writ petition observing that she is a major and has a right to live her life as per her own will and on the terms and conditions as she desires. She has categorically stated that she does not want to go back to her parents; therefore, being an adult cannot be forced to go back. It is argued that there is nothing on record to show that any offence has been committed by the present applicant rather a missing report was lodged by her uncle, on the basis of which FIR has been registered; hence, no offence is made out against the present applicant. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prays for granting of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the State as well as the complainant have vehemently opposed the application stating that the FIR was registered 27.01.2022. The applicant is still absconding in the matter and not cooperating with the prosecution agency. Even the arrest warrant has been issued against him by the learned trial Court on 25.02.2022 and an award of Rs.5,000/- has been announced against him, but despite of the same he has not appeared to tender his presence before the Court. Proceeding under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has also been initiated against the present applicant. It is argued that the applicant is already a married person and he has forcefully taken away the daughter of the complainant, aged about 20 years and has kept her under unlawful confinement. The proceeding

Signature Not Verified under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. between the applicant and his wife are already SAN

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN pending consideration. In such circumstance, no case for grant of anticipatory bail KHAN Date: 2022.04.20 16:31:38 IST

is made out on false pretext and showing himself to be unmarried he has taken

away the daughter of the complainant. Placing reliance reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171, they have prayed for dismissal of the application.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it is not disputed that the daughter of the complainant Siddhi Gupta is a major. She herself has preferred a writ petition before this Court (record of the writ petition was called by this Court) being Writ

Petition No.5101/2022, which was disposed of 09.03.2022 making the following observations:-

The petitioner has been produced through Video Conferencing from Lucknow, through the office of Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. The parents of the petitioner are also present in the Court and they have also seen and heard their daughter through virtual mode.

The petitioner in very clear terms has stated that she wanted to study further, however, her parents were not ready to let her study, rather they wanted her to get married. Under this force and threat, she has run away with the help of one Durgvijay Singh @ Sandeep Singh, who allegedly is the driver of the parents of petitioner. The parents have stated that the girl has sent the photographs wearing 'Sindoor' to the police authorities showing that she is now married. Petitioner when confronted with this has stated that she sent that photographs only for the purpose that the parents may not come after her or threatened her. She has stated that she is not married and living alone and earning her living by giving tuition to the children. She submits that after completing her studies and apply for IAS and only after she achieves her target, she will go to meet her parents but at this point of time she has no intention to give her address to her parents or to meet them.

It is the statement of the parents before this Court that the girl has been kidnapped by their driver and they have CCTV footage to that effect. It is further stated that the driver is already married but somehow he has lured their daughter to go with him. After hearing their daughter, it is stated that the girl is making statement under the influence of the said driver. It is further stated that they have also filed an FIR in this regard.

In case, if an FIR has already been registered and CCTV footage has been submitted before the Police Authorities, the authorities may investigate the matter, and if they found that the person Durgvijay Singh @ Sandeep Singh, is already married and has kidnapped the petitioner then action may be taken against such person. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be harassed at any stage.

The petitioner is major nearly 20 years of age and has a right to live her life as per her own will and on such terms and conditions as she desires. She does not want to go back to her parents. She being an adult cannot be forced to return to her parents.

Under the circumstances, the request of the parents of petitioner to summon her under

Signature Not Verified police custody and give them her custody to them cannot be acceded to. SAN

With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2022.04.20 16:31:38 IST Certified copy as per rules.

From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparently clear that Siddhi Gupta as well as her father Baikunth Narayan Gupta have marked their presence before this Court through Video Conferencing and their statements were categorically recorded by the Court. Siddhi Gupta was admittedly found to be a major and she has categorically stated in the writ petition regarding force being created by the parents to get her marriage solemnized. She has further stated that she wants to prepare for Administrative Service Examination and want to study more. She has further stated that no threatening or pressure being given to her; therefore, this Court has disposed of the writ petition permitting her to live anywhere she wants being a major and has a right to lead her life. It has further pointed out in the order that some allegations were leveled by the father regarding kidnapping, but she has denied the factum of kidnapping. No force or threatening or harassment is stated to have been done to Siddhi Gupta, which is clear from the statement recorded before this Court in the writ petition. The order passed by the Writ Court has not been put to challenge at any point of time by the complainant. In such circumstances, the same has attained finality.

As far as maintainability of application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is from the order passed by the Writ Court it is apparently clear that Siddhi Gupta has categorically given her statement before this Court pointing out the fact that nobody had kidnapped or abducted her and she on her own will had left her house and it is the only part that the applicant has held her. In such circumstances, no offence appears to have been made out. But as far as presence of the applicant before the trial Court is concerned, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the applicant to appear before the trial Court within seven working days from today.

Accordingly, this application is allowed subject to verification that he is a first offender. In the event of arrest, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Signature Not Verified SAN Arresting Officer.

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN It the applicant does not mark his presence before the trial Court Date: 2022.04.20 16:31:38 IST

within seven working days from today, the bail granted by this Court shall stands rejected automatically.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant/s :-

1. The applicant/s will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant/s will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3 . The applicant/s will not indulge himself/themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant/s shall not involve in any other offence, in case the applicant/s indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.

5. The applicant/s will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The applicant/s will not leave India without previous permission of the

trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

7. The applicant/s will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE taj

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2022.04.20 16:31:38 IST