Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep @ Rahul Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
(Through Video Conferencing)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51238 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP @ RAHUL CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI
RAMBAHADUR @ LALLU CHAUDHARY, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
VILLAGE KOTAR WARD NO 14 P.S. KOTAR
DISTRIDCT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SEN - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION KOTAR DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAURABH SONI - PANEL LAWYER)
T h is application coming on for admission this day, t h e court
passed the following:
ORDER
Case diary is available.
2. This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.324/2023 registered at
Police Station Kotar, Distt. Satna for offence under Sections 376(2)(n),
506 of IPC.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that undisputedly
the prosecutrix is major and married woman. She is a mother of two
children. It is her allegation that because of her dispute with her husband,
she was residing separately and with passage of time she developed
relationship with the applicant. On one day the applicant informed her that
he is all alone in his house and therefore, she may come and accordingly,
she went to the house of the applicant and had dinner with him. When she
expressed her willingness to return back to her house than it was informed
by applicant that since it is already night and no public conveyance is
available therefore she may stay in his house. On that day she had physical
relationship. Subsequently also they had physical relationship. However,
now the applicant has refused to marry her. It is submitted that since the
prosecutrix is already a married woman and her marriage is still subsisting,
therefore, even otherwise her marriage with applicant was not possible.
Thus, it cannot be said that the consent of the prosecutrix is hit by Section
90 of the IPC. The applicant is in jail from 17.10.2023, the trial is likely to
take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or
tampering with the prosecution case.
4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the
counsel for the State.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as
the period of detention, but without commenting on the merits of the case,
the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be
released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One lac. only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court to appear before the Court
on the dates given by the concerned Court.
6. This order shall effective till the end of trial but in case of bail
jump, it shall become ineffective.
7. In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021 in
Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be
sent to the complainant.
8. Certified copy as per rules.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
V. JUDGE
sarathe
