Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shatruhan Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3338
1 MCRC-6184-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6184 of 2025
SHATRUHAN SINGH CHAUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Raj Kumar
Shrivastava - Advocate and Shri Vijay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Saket Udeniya - learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Abdhesh Singh Tomar - learned counsel for the complainant.
ORDER
1. This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of
BNSS (Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime
No.27/2025 registered at Police Station - Padav District - Gwalior (M.P.) for the
offence under Sections 69, 115(2) and 74 of BNS.
2. The allegation levelled against the applicant is that on the pretext of
marriage he committed rape with the prosecutrix.
3 . Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that as per the allegations of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3338
2 MCRC-6184-2025
prosecution, the relationship of the present applicant with the prosecutrix was
started since 2008 and whatever allegations under Section 69 of BNS have
been alleged against the applicant are prior to year 2024; therefore, such
allegations are not tenable. It is further submitted that earlier same
prosecutrix lodged an FIR against other person namely Amit with similar
allegations copy of which has been filed along with Samagra I.D. and other
documents. Present applicant has also filed an application on 17.12.2024
that he may be implicated by the prosecutrix falsely and thereafter, the
prosecutrix has withdrawn the complaint and given an affidavit A/8 dated
2.1.2025 which shows that the present applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case. As regards the criminal history, seven more
cases have been registered against the applicant but in those cases he has
been acquitted. He is ready to comply with the condition imposed by the
Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that applicant is
permanent resident of District - Gwalior and there is no possibility of his
absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, prayed for grant
of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for
the complainant have opposed the application by submitting that present
applicant, on the pretext of marriage, committed rape with the prosecutrix while
he has admitted that he solemnized four marriages with different ladies. It is
further submitted that last incident happened in year 2021 and 2025. He was in
relationship with the prosecutrix continuously, therefore, the offence under
Section 69 of BNS is established. It is further submitted that there is a forgery in
the Samagra I.D. and Aadhar Card of the prosecutrix hence the allegation against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3338
3 MCRC-6184-2025
prosecutrix that she is habitual of levelling allegation against different persons is
baseless. It is further submitted that even though the applicant is a Tehsildar
(Government Servant), he has criminal history of seven cases and had four wives
which itself shows criminal conduct of the present applicant. It is also submitted
that no copy of the judgment as regards criminal antecedents showing acquittal of
the appellant has been filed; therefore, it is prayed that the bail application of the
applicant may be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is
found that direct allegations are levelled against the applicant and he has criminal
antecedents, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, but without
commenting any merits of the case, no case is made for grant of anticipatory bail
to the applicant.
5. Consequently, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
