Ujjawalnath Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9301 MP

             1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

                       ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022

             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29791 of 2022

 Between:-
 UJJAWALNATH SINGH S/O UPENDERNATH
 SINGH,  AGED    ABOUT    26   YEARS,
 OCCUPATION: M.B.B.S. STUDENT POST
 OFFICE BHAGI PATTI KATIYA GOPALGANJ
 BIHAR AT PRESENT 601 FERNS SHALIMAR
 TOWNSHIP (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                         .....PETITIONER
 (BY SHRI N.K. GUPTA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ARPIT SINGH -
 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)

 AND

 THE   STATE    OF   MADHYA   PRADESH
 THROUGH POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA
 DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                       .....RESPONDENT
 (BY SHRI ROHIT MISHRA - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
 STATE AND SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH PAL - ADVOCATE FOR
 COMPLAINANT)
      This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed

the following:

                                 ORDER

This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime

No.16/2022, registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Vidisha, District- Vidisha, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of the IPC.

2. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that applicant is apprehending his arrest on the basis of registration of offence as referred above. False case has been registered against the applicant which is reflected from the written complaint made by the complainant. Applicant and prosecutrix shared emotional and physical proximity and when said relationship turned soured then this false complaint has been registered.

3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that prosecutrix was earlier married to one Gaurav Bhandari but later on vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2016, she was separated by mutual consent by way of application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter, she again married to one Avinash Kumar and their relationship also turned soured, then application for divorce has been filed by them which is pending and therefore, she is still a married woman, therefore, no such promises could have been made by the applicant regarding his marriage with prosecutrix. Some monetary dispute has been tried to be converted into false implication.

4. Learned Senior Advocate referred the call details (chat on WhatsApp) held between prosecutrix and wife of applicant and submitted that false case has been registered against the applicant. The applicant is innocent person. Confinement may bring him social disrepute and personal inconvenience. Applicant is ready to abide by all the conditions

as shall be imposed over him and he would mend his ways and become a better citizen. Therefore, he prayed for anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State on the basis of case diary opposed the prayer and submitted that as per allegations, despite being searched, applicant is not available for investigation and arrest warrant has been issued and award of Rs.2,000/- has been declared over the arrest of applicant, therefore, it appears that custodial interrogation is required. Allegations are serious in nature, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this application.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed the prayer by filing of bunch of documents indicating the mischief of applicant committed from time to time including the payment taken by him from the complainant intermittently and submitted that he is well connected man and if he is released on bail, then he would not cooperate in the investigation/trial and would cause threat and intimidate to the prosecutrix. He forced himself over the prosecutrix despite her objection and misused the proximity, therefore, complainant prayed for dismissal of this bail application.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents submitted by the parties.

8. This is a case where applicant is seeking anticipatory bail for offence as referred above. Contents of FIR and statements prima facie indicate that applicant and prosecutrix had some close proximity but in later part of FIR, prosecutrix specifically stated about the act of

commission of offence of rape committed by the applicant and said allegations are serious in nature. His overall role appears to be shady/tainted. From the case diary, it appears that cash award of Rs.2000/- has been declared over the arrest of applicant because he is not cooperating in investigation and despite issuance of arrest warrant, he did not appear, therefore, cumulatively, custodial interrogation is required.

9. Considering the nature of allegations and role of applicant, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to him. Applicant has to submit himself before the course of justice and seek regular bail in accordance with law. Even otherwise, applicant is resident of distant place of State of Bihar and possibility cannot be ruled out that he may abscond and would not cooperate in investigation and trial.

10. In the cumulative analysis, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed on merits.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid

RASHID KHAN 2022.07.14 10:10:37 +05'30' 11.0.8