Madhya Pradesh High Court
Irfan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2967 of 2022
Between:-
IRFAN S/O SHRI RAMJAN , AGED ABOUT 30
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
ISLAMPUR POLICE STATION PANDHANA
DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR TIWARI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION PANDHANA/AJAK DISTRICT
KHANDWA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM A S/O NOT MENTION THROUGH P.S.
PANDHANA/AJAK DISTT. - KHANDWA (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI DARSHAN SONI, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
T h is appeal coming on for Admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the
Act') against the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Khandwa (MP), whereby an application of the
appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.
Appellant is in custody since 16.12.2021 in connection with Crime
No.630/2021 registered at Police Station- Pandhana, District Khandwa (MP) for
the offence punishable under Sections 450, 323, 506-II and 376 (2) of IPC and
Section 3 (2) (v) & 3(2)(V-ka) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Counsel for the appellant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the
Signature Not Verified
matter and he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is submitted that
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
initially the incident alleged to have taken place in the month of July, 2021,
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.04.19 10:13:50 IST
however, a report to the incident was lodged on 16.12.2021 without there being
any proper explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The victim is major lady
aged about 32 years. He has been acquitted in other case registered for the similar
offence. It is further submitted that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet
has been filed in the matter on 01.02.2022. He has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.1165/2019) decided
on 21.08.2019 wherein in almost similar terms the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that in such circumstances, physical relationship which has been made does not
amount to commission of offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. The aforesaid
aspect was further considered in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of
Jharkhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108 and similar view was taken in the
case of Prashant Bharti Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in (2013) 9 SCC
293, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent that in the case of
a married woman, if a physical relation is being made on the false promise of
marriage, no case under Section 376 of I.P.C. is made out. The appellant is in
custody since 16.12.2021. There is no further requirement of custodial
interrogation of the present appellant, therefore, it has been prayed that the
appellant be released on bail.
Per contra, counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions
stating that the incident has taken place on 14.12.2021 and a report was lodged on
16.12.2021 alleging that there were forceful sexual intercourse committed by the
present applicant and there are injuries on the body of the victim. It is submitted
that the applicant is having criminal past of 9 cases, but he fairly states that five
cases are prior to 2009 and remaining cases are for minor offence. Filing of
charge-sheet is not disputed by the State counsel.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, without
commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow
this appeal. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety
bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) with one solvent surety in
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.04.19 10:13:50 IST
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the appellant :-
1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond
executed by him;
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may
be;
4. The appellant shall not involve any other offence, in case the appellant
indulges in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court
shall automatically cancelled.
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial
Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. The appellant 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.
I n view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed to follow Covid
Protocol as per the guidelines before releasing the appellant on bail.
Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
CC as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.04.19 10:13:50 IST
