MCRC/3606/2024 of RAHUL AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024

ORDER

This is the first application filed on behalf of applicant under Section 438of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No. 08/2024 registeredby Police Station - Shahpura, District Bhopal (M.P.) for commission of offenceunder Section 376 of IPC. Applicant apprehending his arrest in the aforesaidoffence has knocked the portal of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. A s per the prosecution story, it is alleged that prosecutrix hadfriendship with the applicant on Instagram therefore, she went to meet him buton the pretext of performing marriage applicant has taken her to Oyo Hotel Tilanga, Bhopal and committed sexual intercourse and made his obscene videoalso in his mobile. Thereafter, applicant has refused to marry her and startedblackmailing. On her complaint, Police registered the aforesaid offence againstthe present applicant.

3 . Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant isinnocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Theprosecutrix is a major lady. It is submitted that FIR is delayed by 41 dayswhich shows that complainant made the report after proper thinking andplanning. Prosecutrix has submitted written application in the police station andon that basis this FIR has been lodged. Applicant and complainant are distancerelative. When the applicant denied from performing the marriage then a falsecase for the purpose of blackmailing is registered. It is submitted that presentapplicant was under presumption that a false case may be registered against himtherefore, on 15/12/2023 he has submitted an application in this regard to policeheadquarter, Bhopal and FIR has been lodged after 25 days of the presentationof application by the application in police headquarter, Bhopal. It is alsosubmitted that complainant/prosecutrix's brother sent a text message to theapplicant and threatened him to take a decision of marriage otherwise, FIR willbe lodged against him. The applicant has no criminal history. Therefore, it hasbeen prayed that applicant/accused be released on anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed grant ofanticipatory bail.

5. Having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of thecase, but without commenting on merit of the case, I am of the view that it is acase in which applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. Consequently, first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of CriminalProcedure for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant stands allowed.

6. It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant by the police in theaforesaid crime,applicantbe released on bail on furnishing personal bond in thesum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety andsecurity in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer(Investigating Officer) for his regular appearance before the Police during theinvestigation or before the Court during trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the followingconditions by the applicant :

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of thebond executed by him.

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit offence similar to the offence of whichhe is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of thetrial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Certified copy as per rules.

navin

(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE