Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/54618/2023 of MUKUL PARIHAR @ VIRAJ THAKUR @ JAGBHAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 54618 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MUKUL PARIHAR @ VIRAJ THAKUR @ JAGBHANSINGH S/O SHRI HARNAM SINGH, AGE 28 YEARS,OCCUPATION: MAJDURI, R/O MILITARY CAMP KE PASSJHANSI (UTTAR PRADESH)
(BY SHRI R.S.YADAV - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION CIVIL LINES DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI A.K.NIRANKARI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR STATE)(SHRI DEVANSH MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Case diary is available.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
2. This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail.
3 . The applicant has been arrested on 23.11.2023 in connection withCrime No.771/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Vidisha foroffence under Sections 376, 384 of IPC.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for applicant that the proseuctrix is a major married woman. It is alleged that on 14.09.2023, the applicant came to herhouse and had physical relationship with her. Thereafter, on 28.09.2023 again,the applicant was seen outside house of the prosecutrix and accordingly shecalled him inside the house where he extended a threat that he would disclosethe factum of physical relationship, and accordingly she gave an amount ofRs.40,000/- to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was continuouslythreatening her for demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 17.11.2023, again the applicantcame to house of prosecutrix and at that time, she gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the applicant. It is submitted that the allegations of extortion orgiving amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the applicant are false. Even if, the entireallegations are accepted, then it appears that applicant and proseucutrix hadsome intimate relationship and physical relations took place with her consent.The Trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of hisabsconding or tampering with the prosecution case.
5. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel forthe State as well as counsel for the complainant. However, counsel for thecomplainant could not explain as to why the prosecutrix had invited theapplicant in her house frequently and counsel for complainant also could notdisclose the source of cash amount of Rs.1,40,000/-.
6. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case andwithout commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It isdirected that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond inthe sum o f Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one surety in the likeamount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear beforethe Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
7. This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
8. In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the caseo f Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on 18.03.2021 inCriminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sentto the complainant.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
Aman
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)V. JUDGE