Keshav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3876 MP

                                                              1
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2022

                                     MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13588 of 2022

                         Between:-
                         KESHAV S/O RAJENDRA PATEL , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                         OCCUPATION: TEACHER R/O GADARI MOHALLA
                         TIMRANI, TAHSIL TIMRANI, DISTRICT HARDA (M.P.)
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                         (BY SHRI SHASHANK TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE)

                         AND

            1.           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                         STATION HARDA DISTRICT HARDA M.P. (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

            2.           VICTIM X D/O NOT MENTION OCCUPATION: NIL
                         THROUGH SHO P.S. MAHILA THANA HARDA DISTRICT
                         HARDA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI YOGENDRA DAS YADAV, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

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

on behalf of applicant Keshav S/o Shri Rajendra Patel, aged about 30 years, Occupation- Teacher who is apprehending his arrest in connection with case Crime No.17/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Harda (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 and 34 of IPC.

Applicant's contention is that applicant is innocent. There is delay of two and a half years in lodging of the report. It is not a case of physically exploiting the prosecutrix in the name of marriage. It is submitted that in fact, prosecutrix had seen the applicant in a compromising position with his Bhabhi and, therefore, there was a breakup. It is submitted that only allegation against the present applicant is of coercing the prosecutrix and blackmailing her. It is submitted that this Court has already extended benefit of anticipatory bail to co-applicant Sunita W/o Shri Babulal against whom there are allegations of helping Signature SAN the Not present applicant in blackmailing the prosecutrix. It is submitted that applicant's case is Verified

similar Digitally signed by and he too be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. APARNA TIWARI Date: 2022.03.22 13:38:39 IST

Looking to the gravity of the offence and also the fact that the judgments on which counsel for the applicant places reliance namely Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 608 and Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108 are the judgments which were delivered at the stage of final judgment when all the

prosecution evidence was available on record, are distinguishable on its own facts and, therefore, for the present, when investigation is going on, there are serious allegations against the present applicant and it cannot be said to be a case of false nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, learned Government Advocate in his turn submits that prosecutrix has supported the case in her statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Court has rightly recorded a finding that since prosecutrix is being blackmailed by the applicant after breakup, it is a case of coercion and criminal intimidation and has rightly denied benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Reading statements given by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there are specific allegations which are mentioned in statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. there is also allegation in para-5 showing connotations of human trafficking for which no offence has been registered but which can be taken in consideration by the trial Court at the time of framing of charges.

Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE AT