Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhay Kanojiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31486 of 2022
Between:-
ABHAY KANOJIYA S/O AJAY KANOJIYA, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O SANJAY NAGAR, POWER HOUSE,
ADHARTAL, JABALPUR (MP).
.....APPLICANT
(BY SMT. MANJEET P.S. CHUCKAL, ADVOCATE )
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
MADHOTAL JABALPUR (MP).
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PIYUSH JAIN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
(SHRI RAJESH K. AWASTHY, ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the objector has also filed written objection vide IA
No. 12815/2022.
This is first application on behalf of applicant under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicant is apprehending his arrested in connection with Crime No.
347/2022 registered at Police Station Madhotal, Jabalpur for the offences
punishable under Sections 364, 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
To bring the case within the scope of granting benefit under Section 438
Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2022.07.12 11:58:32 IST
of Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false complaint has
been made by the prosecutrix against the present applicant. She submits that
conduct of the prosecutrix makes it clear that she is constantly indulged in
making such false complaints against other persons also just to blackmail them.
She submits that the whole family of the prosecutrix is running a racket and
indulged in such type of activities.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that to substantiate as to how
the prosecutrix and her family are indulged in such type of activities she has
filed various judgments of the trial court and the documents as Annexure A/2
relating to the persons against whom complaints have been made by the
prosecutrix and her family members and from perusal of the same it would be
crystal clear that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Referring to the said documents, learned counsel submits that in sequence
of alike activities, the prosecutrix had made a complaint against one Shubham
Sonkar upon which offence was registered against him under Sections 376(1)
and 506-II of IPC. In the said case also the allegations against accused
Shubham Sonkar were verbatim the same as have been alleged against the
present applicant. Ultimately, the accused was acquitted of the said charge by
the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 18.01.2013 passed in ST No.
772/2012. The Sessions Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutrix has also made a complaint
against one Nizamuddin and the offence has been registered against him under
Section 376(1) and 506 of IPC, which is pending. Counsel submits that she has
filed a document at page 27 of the application, which indicates that prosecutrix
Signature Not Verified
has also made a complaint against one Lal Bahadur Yadav upon which offence
SAN
Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA
under Sections 354, 506, 509 and 323 of IPC has been registered against him.
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2022.07.12 11:58:32 IST
She submits that following the similar foot-steps, mother of the prosecutrix also
lodged a complaint against one Bijju Kol whereupon offence under Sections
354 and 506-II of IPC was registered and the case was registered as Criminal
Case No. 8805/2014, however, Bijju Kol has also been acquitted by the
sessions court vide judgment dated 22.08.2016. She submits that taking the
same lore ahead, cousin sister of the prosecutrix also made a complaint against
one Lakhan whereupon offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6
of the POCSO Act was registered against him and a case i.e. Special Sessions
Case No. 13/2017 was registered in which the accused Lakhan had also been
acquitted by the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2017. She submits
that it is appropriate here to note that in the said case the prosecutrix was the
witness. She submits that similarly an FIR was lodged by another cousin sister
of the prosecutrix namely Suman Rajput Thakur against one Naseem Ahmed
with the same allegations, which have been alleged against the present applicant
and the prosecutrix was a witness in the said case and supported the case of the
prosecution.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that thus from the aforesaid, it
can be easily gathered that the whole family of the prosecutrix is involved in
making false complaint against other persons also just to blackmail them and as
such it is clear that the applicant has also been falsely implicated in the present
case.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the bail
application and submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail for
the reason that FIR made by the prosecutrix against the applicant makes it clear
Signature Not Verified
SAN that the present applicant developed the physical relation with the prosecutrix on
Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
the pretext of marriage and they got married also in a temple, lived together for
Date: 2022.07.12 11:58:32 IST
few months, the prosecutrix got pregnant and thereafter she was compelled to
get her pregnancy aborted. He submits that not only this, when applicant and
the prosecutrix were living separately, applicant went to the house of the
prosecutrix and after threatening her developed forceful physical relation with
her and also poured petrol over her and then she lodged the FIR. He submits
that applicant has criminal past as several cases have been registered against
him. Upon such submission, he submits that applicant is not entitled to get
benefit of anticipatory bail. However, in the MLC, there is no opinion of the
doctor about the presence of petrol over the body of the prosecutrix, because
the MLC was got done immediately after the incident.
Learned counsel for the objector has supported the submission made by
the counsel for the State and submitted that although the applicant and the
prosecutrix solemnized marriage, but thereafter when they started living
separately the applicant threatened the prosecutrix and compelled her to make
physical relation, therefore, offence under the aforesaid sections has rightly
been registered against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant
suppressed the fact from the prosecutrix that he was a married person and
hence from the very inception, the intention of the applicant was not guiltless
and, therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties
and after perusal of the record and also the case diary, prima-facie I am of the
opinion that the benefit under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be granted to
applicant. Accordingly, this application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail
Signature Not Verified
SAN
upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Lakh only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Date: 2022.07.12 11:58:32 IST
Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section
438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is further directed that the applicant will not try to make contact with
the prosecutrix and will not influence the evidence and extend any threat to any
of the witness of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2022.07.12 11:58:32 IST
