Radheshyam Keer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10985 MP

                                                             1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                                  ON THE 17 th OF JULY, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22866 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RADHESHYAM KEER S/O LAKSHMAN KEER, AGED
                           ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SOLDIER (INDIAN
                           ARMY) MEJA MANDAL DIST. BHILWADA (RAJASTHAN)

                                                                                         .....APPLICANT
                           (SHRI SHANMUKH BACHU, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT.)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                 HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                 STATION ROAD RATLAM, DISTRICT RATLAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    VICTIM   X THROUGH P.S. STATION ROAD
                                 RATLAM, DIST. RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI VIRAJ GODHA, LEARNED P.L. FOR THE RESPONDENT/ STATE.)
                           (SHRI VISHAL PANWAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT.)

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

                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail, as the applicant/accused is apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR/Crime No.607/2022 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station- Station Road Ratlam, District Ratlam (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(N), 323 and 506 of the IPC. Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 18-07-2023 18:55:17

2 . As per prosecution case, in year 2018 the prosecutrix met the applicant/ accused on Facebook who is serving in the Indian Army, posted at Guwhati. Staying in touch for 1-2 years, they started liking each other and used to meet each other. In year 2021, the applicant told that he wishes to marry her. In October 2021, the applicant took the prosecutrix in hotel Shree Palace in Ratlam and gave false pretext to marry her, thereafter, at around 05:00 PM, the applicant had sexual intercourse with her. In the night, she returned home, thereafter both of them used to talk to each other on phone. The applicant also told that after construction of house, he will marry her. On 09/04/2022, the applicant again had sexual intercourse at the same place with her. Till May 2022,

there was conversation between them but in the month of June, the applicant stopped picking her call and blocked her phone number. On 28/07/2022, the prosecutrix went to meet the applicant to his home at Meja Mandal Bhilwada. He took the prosecutrix in a hotel and slapped her. He threatened her that if she came to his home, he will not marry her and kill her. Lastly, the applicant denied to marry with the prosecutrix.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case. The prosecutrix being a major and consenting party to the physical relationship. The applicant had never given false pretext to marry her. The prosecutrix earlier had also lodged report against a person named Pradeep Singh, crime no.15/ 2018, offence u/s 376(2)

(n), IPC, (Annexure A-4) which had resulted in acquittal vide judgment dated 04/09/2019 (Annexure A-5), wherein the prosecutrix had not supported the case.

4. It has further been submitted that after some time the prosecutrix had

Signature Not Verified started to blackmail the applicant by demanding money. He had given Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 18-07-2023 18:55:17

Rs.31,000/- to the prosecutrix by online transaction (Annexure A-3). Apart from that he had also given Rs.1.5 - 2.0 Lakh in cash, but her demand did not stop. Lastly, the applicant had denied to give money to the prosecutrix, then she had lodged FIR against the applicant. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant shall be granted anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state as well as counsel for the objector have opposed the application and prayed for its rejection. Counsel for the state has also submitted that a crime no.162/2020 offence u/s 323, 341, 308, 427 and 504 of IPC was also registered against the applicant wherein his anticipatory bail was rejected on 29/07/2020 by the learned trial court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the view of this court, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

7. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Radheshyam shall be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the Trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

M.Cr.C. stands disposed of, accordingly.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE ajit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 18-07-2023 18:55:17

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 18-07-2023 18:55:17