Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/52034/2018 of ALOKMANI PAYASI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018
Court Of Madhya PradeshThe High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-52034-2018
The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMCRC-52034-2018
(ALOKMANI PAYASIVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
[31][-][12][-][2018]Jabalpur, Dated :
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior counsel with Shri Rahul Sharma,learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.N.Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
The verification report of the affidavit filed by the prosecutrix has beenreceived.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as applicantAlokmani Payasi apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.179/2018registered at Police Station Kothi, District - Satna (M.P.) for the offencepunishable under Sections 376(2)(b), and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, on 13.10.2018 the applicant abducted theprosecutrix and took her to near Shri Hanuman Temple situated at Chitrakootroad by Discover Motor-cycle bearing registration No.MP-19/8668 where hecommitted rape with the prosecutrix and also threatened her that if she narratethe incident to any body, he would kill her.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocentand has falsely been implicated in the case. The offence is said to haveoccurred on 13.10.2018 and the prosecutrix lodged the report on 18.10.2018.The prosecutrix was major and she has also filed an affidavit stating thereinthat the applicant had not committed any offence with her. The applicant hasno criminal past. The applicant is also ready to cooperate in the investigationand trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Under thesecircumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for grantof anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant committed rape with theprosecutrix and so he should not be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the factthat the offence is said to have occurred on 13.10.2018, while the prosecutrtixlodged the report on 18.10.2018 and she was major, so without commentingon the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that inthe event of arrest of applicant by the Police in the aforesaid case, theapplicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in thesum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in thelike amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/Investigating Officer forhis regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before theCourt during trial.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the followingconditions by the applicant :-
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.
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond 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 threator 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 an offence similar to the offence ofwhich he 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.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)V. JUDGE