Jitendra Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5947 MP

                                                                1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                               ON THE 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11743 of 2023

                    BETWEEN:-
                    JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA,
                    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O VILLAGE
                    AND POST SAMAN, TAH. BYOUHARI, DIST. SHAHDOL (M.P.)
                    (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....APPLICANT
                    (BY SHRI N.P. DUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                    AND
                    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. OMTI P.S. OMTI,
                    DISTT. JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENT
                    (BY SHRI V.P. TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                           T h is application coming on for admission this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                   following:
                                                            ORDER

T his is the SECOND application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C filed by the

applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.43/2023 registered at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 294 and 323 of IPC. His first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this court as withdrawn vide order dated 22.02.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.7325/2023.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that it is a second visit under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and it is a case where on pretext of false promise of marriage, he and prosecutrix shared physical proximity. When applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix then case has been registered.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TIWARI Signing time: 4/13/2023 6:00:47 PM

Learned counsel referred different FIRs registered at the instance of present prosecutrix against some different persons and thereafter learned counsel for the applicant try to assert over the said documents and submits that prosecutrix is habitual complainant. Therefore, case of applicant is strengthened in second round of litigation.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State oppose the prayer and prayed for dismissal of application.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary. So far as ground raised by applicant regarding allegations against prosecutrix is concerned, it has little meaning compared to the nature of allegations against the applicant.

This is a case where the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail on the basis of false promise of marriage, but infact, it is not a case of false promise but a case of breach of promise, because from the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it appears that applicant was already engaged before calling prosecutrix to Jabalpur on 23.12.2022 and still lived with prosecutrix for four days in a hotel and shared physical proximity. When he knew this fact that he was engaged and not going to marry the prosecutrix, then sharing physical proximity with her amounts to breach of promise and this fact has been dealt with recently in the case of Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66. In previous judgments also in case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2019 SC, 327 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 4010, this aspect has been dealt with extensively.

Even otherwise, the instant case is second application and as per the mandate of Apex Court rendered in the case of G. R. Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 176, Supreme Court has depricated such practice Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TIWARI Signing time: 4/13/2023 6:00:47 PM

wherein second anticipatory bail application has been preferred unless it has some spacious reason. Cumulatively, no case for interference is made out.

The application sans merit is hereby dismissed.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE AT

Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TIWARI Signing time: 4/13/2023 6:00:47 PM