Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4478
1 MCRC-7874-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7874 of 2025
VIJAY SINGH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Devansh Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri D. S. Rajawat - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
This first application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482
of BNSS (Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.14/2025 registered at Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna for offence
punishable under Sections 64, 351(3) of BNS.
2. Allegation against the present applicant is that he committed rape
with the prosecutrix.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is aged about
60 years. Earlier the prosecutrix has lodged an FIR against the present
applicant under Section 354 of IPC. The copy of judgment of that case has
been filed at Annexure A/2 which reveals that the prosecutrix after lodging
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4478
2 MCRC-7874-2025
the FIR and filing of the charge-sheet, in the statement before the trial Court
has turned hostile and did not support the story of prosecution at all,
therefore, the learned trial Court declared acquitted the present applicant. It is
further submitted that there is rivalry between two parties and therefore,
prosecutrix used to lodged FIR against present applicant time and again. In
this regard, Gurjar Samaj has filed a complaint which is appended at
Annexure A/3 along-with affidavits also and thereafter, with melafide
intention, prosecutrix has filed this FIR which is false. The applicant is ready
and willing to co-operate in the investigation and abide by all the terms and
conditions as may be imposed by this Court. The conclusion of trial will take
time. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as
counsel for the complainant opposed the application on the ground that the
instance of earlier case cannot be a premise to deny the veracity of this FIR
lodged by the prosecutrix. The prosecution is going on and FSL and DNA
examination are to be conducted. In respect of this offence, the investigation
is at initial stage. At this stage, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix has
lodged baseless and false FIR. It is also submitted that three other cases have
been registered prior to this offence against the present applicant. It is further
submitted that present applicant is not of 60 years of age. In earlier case, he
has shown to be 50 years of age in year 2022 while in the complaint filed
before the SP, Guna appended at Annexure A/3, he has stated that he is 65
years old, therefore, material facts have been suppressed by the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4478
3 MCRC-7874-2025
applicant qua his age. No case is made out to allow this anticipatory bail
application, hence, they pray to reject the bail application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the nature of allegations levelled against applicant and
manner in which the applicant/accused person is involved in the offence, as
alleged by the prosecution, but without commenting on the merits of the
case, this Court is of the view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is
made out.
7. Accordingly, this application for grant of anticipatory bail to present
applicant is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Monika
