Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 708 (MP)

SHIVDAYAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2000-07-25

R.S.GARG

body2000
R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. Anticipating arrest in connection with Crime No. 105/2000 of Police Station Multai for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC the applicant has filed this petition under Section 438. Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) ONE Archana a girl aged 20-21 years, lodged a written report that the applicant developed an intimacy with her; thereafter enjoyed sex, gave her assurance to marry, but later on refused to marry her, therefore, proper action be taken. From the report, it appears that before registration of the crime and lodgment of the report, the accused and said Archana appeared before the town Inspector before whom the present applicant gave an assurance that he would marry the complainant very shortly. The matter was referred to Parivar Panchayat where the present applicant denied the allegations and offered himself for the enquiries. ( 3 ) BE that as it may the fact remains that the girl is about 20 years of age; she was a consenting party; she conceived pregnancy, and after the applicant refused to marry her, she lodged the report. ( 4 ) TAKING into consideration the nature of allegations and conduct of the prosecutrix, I consider present to be a fit case for grant of an order under section 438 Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IN the event of arrest of applicant, he shall immediately be released by the officer arresting him, on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction or the said officer, for his appearance before the police authorities for the purposes of interrogation, etc. and/or as and where so directed. ( 6 ) IN support of the application for grant of bail, the applicant has filed a copy of letter dated 3-4-2000 sent by the Town Inspector/s. H. O. , Multai to the Supdt. , of Police, Betul. I am not concerned with the recitals or the contents of the said letter, but what surprises me is that an accused is in possession of copy of the letter which is otherwise a confidential document. When a Station House Officer submits his report to the Supdt. of Police, the same is supposed to be a confidential report. Neither it can be supplied to the accused nor can be handled in a manner that everybody has an access to it. When a Station House Officer submits his report to the Supdt. of Police, the same is supposed to be a confidential report. Neither it can be supplied to the accused nor can be handled in a manner that everybody has an access to it. ( 7 ) THE Supdt. of Police Betul is directed to make an enquiry as to how the said letter written by the S. H. O. Multai came in possession of the accused who is also a part of constabutory. The Supdt. of Police would be required to enquire from the said S. H. O. and the present applicant. The applicant is required to appear before the Supdt. of Police with a copy of this order on 7th August. 2000. It is made clear that if the applicant does not appear before the Supdt. of Police on 7th August. 2000 with a copy of this order and copy of letter dated 3-4-2000 the order granting anticipatory bail in his favour would lose its efficacy. ( 8 ) THE Supdt. of Police shall submit his report to this Court within two months of the appearance of the applicant before him. ( 9 ) THE present petition is disposed of. A separate M. Cr. C. be registered. C. C. of the order must be supplied today itself. Petition allowed. .