Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanju @ Sanjay Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22359 of 2022
Between:-
SANJU @ SANJAY CHOUDHARY S/O
HARPRASAD CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 29
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE
GANDHIGANJ TEHSIL MAJHOULI P.S. SIHORA
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SHISHIR KUMAR SONI-ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION OMTI JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI A. RAJESHWAR RAO- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the
applicant for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 14.04.2022 by Police Station-Omti,
Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.183/2022 for the
offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case
Signature Not Verified
SAN and he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is submitted that the
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
first incident took place in November, 2019 the report of which was made in the
Date: 2022.05.13 19:48:14 IST
year 2022. The applicant has been taken into custody on the basis of statement
made by the victim, who is aged about 29 years. He has placed reliance upon
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances, the physical relationship
which has been made does not amount to commission of offence under Section
376 of I.P.C. The determining factor is whether the consent has been given
under misconception of fact or under the false and fraudulent promise of
marriage. 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 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. There is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of
the applicant in the matter. The applicant is a first offender. He is ready to abide
by all the terms and conditions that may b e imposed by this Court while
considering his application for grant of bail. It is further submitted that the
applicant is having no criminal past. He is in custody since 14.04.2022. There is
no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. He is
ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this
Court while considering his application for grant of bail. On these grounds, he
prays for grant of bail.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
opposed the application but could not dispute the fact that the applicant is
Date: 2022.05.13 19:48:14 IST
having no criminal past, as per the case diary records.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without
commenting upon the merits of the case, this application is allowed subject to
verification of the fact that the applicant is having no criminal past. The
applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one local surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may
be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not involve in any other offence, in case the
applicant indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by
this Court shall automatically cancelled;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;
Signature Not Verified
SAN
7. If the applicant is found involved in any case except present one, his
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
bail shall stand rejected without any reference to the Court;
KHAN
Date: 2022.05.13 19:48:14 IST
8. The applicant 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 the
Covid-19 protocol as per the Government guidelines before releasing the
applicant on bail.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
taj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2022.05.13 19:48:14 IST
