Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balvir Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3582 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BALVIR SINGH S/O LT. BISORAM, AGED ABOUT 40
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: PVT. SERVICE REHLU TEH.
SHAHPURA, DIST.KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH
(HIMACHAL PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI VIVEK SHARAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH RAOJI BAZAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL & SHRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI, LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [OBJ].
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard and perused the case diary.
1. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438
of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail who is apprehending his arrest in
relating to F.I.R. No.711/2023 dated (not mentioned), registered at Police
Station-Raoji Bajar District-Indore for the offence punishable under Section
376, 376(2)(n), 323, 506, 384 of IPC, 1860.
2. Applicant is apprehending her arrest in the aforesaid offence, has
knocked the portal of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. As per prosecution case, the complainant namely Madhu Chouhan and
her husband Ajay reached to the police station and filed a written complainant
against the applicant by submitting that the applicant and the complainant
known to them through social media and became friends, they started chating
with each other and exchanged their phone numbers. The applicant intimated to
the complainant that on 26.07.2022, he is coming to Indore but he is not having
amount and taken Rs.15000/- from the complainant on a promise to return her
after being reached to Indore. He asked her to take the amount, therefore the
complainant called him to the house of her friend where the applicant given her
some toxic substance in water and committed rape upon her against her will and
taken some photographs also and threatened her not to tell about the incident to
anyone otherwise he will viral the photographs. Thereafter, the applicant black
mailed her continuously, demanded amount from her, he called her to Mumbai
and repeatedly committed rape upon her at various placed i.e. Jabalpur,
Mumbai and Goa also on the pretest of viral the photographs. She has not
raised to anyone alarm due to damage of reputation in society. Hence, the
police has lodged the FIR against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The prosecutrix is a major
and married lady and she is consenting party. The complainant alongwith her
son has used to travel with the applicant from Indore to Jabalpur and stayed in
the same hotel, the complainant and the applicant was well acquainted with each
other therefore, she herself had gone to Goa to meet and hand over the amount
of Rs.2/- lacs to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant himself
has sent Rs.14/- lacs to the complainant and there is nothing on record to show
that the applicant has committed any act against the complainant against her will.
It is also submitted that the complainant herself has called the applicant to her
friend's house because they were friends. The dispute between both the parties
are only the financial transaction due to which the applicant has been implicated
in the present case. The FIR has been lodged belated and no plausible
explanation has been given for the said delay. The applicant is a businessman
and indulged in the business, he is ready to abide all the conditions as may be
imposed by this Court. Therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
5. To bolster his contentions, counsel for the applicant place reliance
over the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Gwalior Bench) passed
in the case of Balveer Singh Bundela vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(MCRC No.5621/2020) decided on 12.05.2020, whereby the Co-ordinate
bench has considered the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and granted
bail to the applicant therein.
6. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting
that the applicant has committed rape upon the prosecutirx and taken the
amount from the prosecutrix by black mailing her.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the objector has submitted that this is
case for anticipatory bail, the applicant has committed repeated rape upon the
prosecutrix and by black mailing her, taken huge amount from the complainant
threatening her that he will viral the photographs. It is further submitted that even
after such incident, the applicant is regularly threatening the complainant not to
object before the Court and in that conditions, the applicant may not be
enlarged on bail. Hence, prays for dismissal of the application.
8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From the face of record, it clear that the applicant and the complainant
got acquainted through social media. So far as the contention of counsel for the
applicant regarding the consent is concerned, the matter is at very initial stage
and if that be so, the applicant has taken the amount from the complainant and
partly repaid also, but at this state, it can also not be assumed that the applicant
has not black mailed the complainant because the transactions are clearly
reflecting some financial transactions.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh
vs. State of Bihar and others [2012 (4) SCC 379] while canceling the
anticipatory bail of the applicant therein so granted concerned High Court, has
clearly observed that:-
"13.....The anticipatory bail being an extraordinary
privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. The
judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be
properly exercised after proper application of mind to
decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
21......The court may not exercise its discretion in
derogation of established principles of law, rather it has to
be in strict adherence to them. Discretion has to be guided
by law; duly governed by rule and cannot be arbitrary,
fanciful or vague. The court must not yield to spasmodic
sentiment to unregulated benevolence. The order dehors
the grounds provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. itself suffers
from non- application of mind and therefore, cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law."
11. So far as the authority placed by counsel for the applicant in the case
o f Balveer Singh Bundela (supra) is concerned, it is clear that in the said
case the applicant solemnized marriage with complainant/prosecutrix, hence,
anticipatory bail was granted, but the facts of the present case are different,
hence, no benefit can be granted to the applicant, therefore, the same is
distinguished.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the
settled proposition of law laid down by Ho'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai
Prakash Singh (supra), no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, the
application is liable to be and is hereby rejected.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
