Manish Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8070 MP

                                                           1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 18 th OF MAY, 2023
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20247 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          MANISH YADAV S/O SHRI UDAYBHAN SINGH YADAV,
                          AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
                          K-10/149 POLICE LINE NEHRU NAGAR BHOPAL
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI AJAY GUPTA - SENIOR ADVOCATE THROUGH VIDEO
                          CONFERENCING ASSISTED BY SHRI RAJEEV MISHRA - ADVOCATE
                          PRESENT IN PERSON)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                          STATION     HANUMANGANJ     DISTRICT-BHOPAL
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI VIVEK LAKHERA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
                          SHRI DHARMENDRA PATEL - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

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

                          following:
                                                               ORDER

This first bail application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed on behalf of the applicant Manish Yadav S/o Shri Udaybhan Singh Yadav, for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.229/2023 registered at Police Station - Hanumanganj, District Bhopal (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that FIR was lodged Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 5/19/2023 12:57:32 PM

on 12.04.2023. Incident allegedly took place starting from 2016. It is submitted that after 7 years, FIR was lodged. Prosecutrix always knew that applicant was a married person. Since he is a police personnel, he is being blackmailed. Earlier complainant/prosecutrix had lodged case at Crime No.0334/2021 at Police Station Teelajamalpura, under Section 354, 341, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC against two other persons. In this case, final report was submitted by police declaring the case to be a false and concocted one. Placing reliance on this material, it is submitted that prosecutrix is in habit of making false allegations.

3. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89 and

from reading paragraphs 20 and 21, it is pointed out that Hon'ble Supreme Court has made a distinction between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused and case of breach of promise. It is submitted that in the case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix whereas in case of breach of promise one cannot deny the possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise.

4. Reading from the said judgment, it is submitted that since the prosecutrix knew that applicant was married, there is no question of any false promise and, therefore, it is a case of consent. Thus, applicant is entitled to grant anticipatory bail, looking to the fact that he is a police personnel.

5. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned Government Advocate in his turn submits that case is slightly different. It is not like that the prosecutrix knew from the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 5/19/2023 12:57:32 PM

beginning that applicant is married. Applicant was exploiting her since 2016 in the name of marriage. They were in relationship. When prosecutrix became pregnant, she asked the applicant to marry her. When applicant forced her to undergo abortion and that is the time she came to know of the fact that applicant is already married. Reading from statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it is submitted that the prosecutrix has supported the case of prosecution has given statement against the applicant.

6. Shri Dharmendra Patel, learned counsel for complainant also submits that it is not a case of breach of promise but that of a false promise as the prosecutrix was not knowing the status of applicant to be a married man from the beginning. She discovered it later on when the applicant had promised her to divorce his wife and continued to indulge in relationship.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, facts in the case of Naim Ahmed (supra) are different. It has come on record that prosecutrix therein was a married woman having three children and under those facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court noted a fact that prosecutrix could not have been under misconception of fact by giving consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant. Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically noted a fact that the prosectrix being a married woman and mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the

significance and consequences of the moral or immoral quality of acts she was consenting to. However, in the present case though Shri Ajay Gupta, Senior Advocate submits that prosecutrix knew from the beginning that applicant was married but from the statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., this fact is not corroborated. It is a matter of investigation and for the present, it is not a case to show indulgence in the matter of grant of anticipatory Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 5/19/2023 12:57:32 PM

bail.

8. In view of above, this first bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) V. JUDGE Sateesh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 5/19/2023 12:57:32 PM