Jitendra Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3250 MP

                                                              1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                              ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7325 of 2023

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

                                                                                             .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI R. L. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                          STATION OMTI DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI NARENDRA CHOURASIA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

This is the FIRST application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by t h e 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 Section 294, 323, 376(2)(n) of IPC.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is apprehending his arrest on the basis of registration of offence referred above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a case where on pretext of false promise of marriage, he and prosecutrix shared physical Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM MANEKAR Signing time: 2/23/2023 12:52:54 PM

proximity. When applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix, then case has been registered at the instance of prosecutrix for offence referred above. It is not a case of rape per se. Confinement may bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience. On these grounds, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the basis of case diary and statement of prosecutrix submits that it is not a case of false promise. Applicant was already engaged with some other girl and his marriage was likely to be solemnized with that girl and knowing this fact, applicant called prosecutrix in a hotel at Jabalpur and shared physical proximity. Infact, when she raised complaint, then Police intervened and there applicant promised the

prosecutrix to marry, but after coming out of the clutches of Police, he refused to marry prosecutrix. It is not a case of false promise of marriage, but he deliberately avoided the prosecutrix to marry. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this application for anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM MANEKAR Signing time: 2/23/2023 12:52:54 PM

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.

Cumulatively, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Applicant has to suffer confinement for custodial interrogation.

Application sans merit is hereby dismissed.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE pnm

Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM MANEKAR Signing time: 2/23/2023 12:52:54 PM