Pankaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5558 MP

                              1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    MCRC No.18657/2022
                   Pankaj vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated : 18/04/2022

      Shri Rajeev Jain, Counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Pramod Pachauri, Counsel for respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 27/2/2022 in connection

with Crime No.230/2021 registered at Police Station Murwas, Distt.

Vidisha for offence under Sections 370, 376 (2) (N), 344, 323, 506,

376(D) read with Section 34 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to

the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was abducted by Brijmohan

Sharma on 20/6/2021 and she was kept in captivity for a period of five

months, during which she was subjected to rape by various persons

including the applicant.

On 30/3/2022 in M.Cr.C.No.14953/2022 filed by co-accused

Santosh, a statement was made that earlier on 4/8/2021 the husband of

the prosecutrix had lodged a guminsan report No.42/2021 at Police

Station Sironj, District Vidisha that the prosecutrix is missing and

ultimately she was recovered on 14/8/2021, whereas she has stated

that she was abducted on 20/6/2021 and was kept in captivity till

December, 2021 and accordingly, the State counsel was directed to

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.18657/2022 Pankaj vs. State of M.P.

requisition the diary of guminsan report No.42/2021. The same was

produced. From which, it was found that on 4/8/2021 the husband of

the prosecutrix lodged a report that he had left his wife in her parental

home about two months' back. Today when he came to his

matrimonial home in order to take his wife back, then he was informed

that the family members of his wife have shifted to Nalkheda and

accordingly, he went to Nalkheda where he was informed that his wife

has left village Bagrod about 15 days back without informing

anybody. About 4-6 days back, his wife had informed him on phone

that she has married one Gujar in Kurvai Court. Accordingly, the

prosecutrix was recovered on 14/8/2021. The Recovery Panchnama is

also a part of the diary of guminsan report no.42/2021.

Thus, when the prosecutrix was recovered on 14/8/2021, then

the allegation that she was kept in captivity for continuously five

months appears to be suspicious.

It is submitted that by order dated 6.4.2022 passed in

M.Cr.C.No.14953/2022 the Court has granted bail to co-accused

Santosh. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is

no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution

case.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that the applicant was

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.18657/2022 Pankaj vs. State of M.P.

named in the FIR.

Considering the diary of guminsan report no.42/2021 and

without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is

allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial

Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given

by the concerned Court.

This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case

of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the

case of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on

18.03.2021 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 Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.04.19 15:13:41 +05'30'