Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/5966/2020 of MONU @ BHUPENDRA THAKRE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020
Court Of Madhya PradeshThe High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CRA-5966-2020 (MONU
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.
Signature Not VerifiedSAN
The High Court Of Madhya PradeshCRA-5966-2020
(MONU @ BHUPENDRA THAKREVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
[31][-][12][-][2020]Jabalpur, Dated :Jabalpur, Dated :
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Vikash Chouksey, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Objector.
Heard.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant underSection 14-A(1 & 2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by the order dated23.11.2020 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Balaghat, whereby thebail application of the appellant has been rejected.
The appellant is in custody since 05.11.2020 in connection with CrimeNo.145/2020 registered at Police Station Birsa, District Balaghat (M.P.) forthe offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 450 and 506 of IPC,Sections 3(1)(W)(1) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and Sections 3 and 5 ofImmoral Traffic Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that present appellant hasbeen falsely implicated on the basis of false complaint made by thecomplainant as she has admitted that she had borrowed an amount ofRs.3000/- from the present appellant and when the appellant demanded themoney, she said that the same will be repaid on coming of her husband.Counsel for the appellant submits that even after coming of her husband, theamount was not repaid and the complainant therefore made false complaintabout committing rape with her. Counsel for the appellant submits that it wascompletely a false story and explanation given about lodging the report afterlong delay that because of threat she has not lodged the complaintimmediately is not acceptable. It is further submitted that such an explanationis also not acceptable because threat was not of the nature under which a lady Signature Not VerifiedSANDigitally signed by VINODVISHWAKARMADate: 2020.12.31 17:15:59 IST
would not lodge the complaint against such an offence.
Learned Panel Lawyer as well as learned counsel for the Objectoropposes the bail application and submits that in view of the FIR andstatement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is clear that the presentappellant has committed rape with the complainant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the charge sheet hasalready been filed and the present appellant is in custody since 05.11.2020.
Considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties andlooking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate torelease the appellant on bail, therefore without commenting on the merits ofthe case, the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(1 & 2) ofScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act seemsto be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that appellant-Monu @ Bhupendra Thakre shall bereleased on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (RupeesFifty Thousand) with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of thetrial Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)V. JUDGE
vinod