Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 767 (MP)

Pravesh Kumar v. State of M. P.

2014-07-07

D.K.PALIWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT D.K. Paliwal, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No. 5176/2014, which is an application seeking permission on behalf of the complainant to assist the Panel Lawyer. 2. The prayer is allowed. 3. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 02/2014 registered at P.S. Endori, District Bhind for the offence punishable under sections 354(B), 323 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(xi) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. As per the prosecution case, on 15.12.2013 Rameshwar has informed through Rakesh Jatav to the complainant that her loan has been sanctioned and called her at Barahet school. When the complainant went to Barahet school at about 2.00 PM at that time in the room Rameshwar was sitting alongwith two persons. The complainant asked whether her loan has been sanctioned or not. Upon which Rameshwar introduced with Sudhir Tripathi and Pravesh Chaturvedi and told that they have sanctioned the loan of the complainant. Thereafter, Rameshwar has closed the door. Thereafter, the complainant was caught hold of by all the three persons. They torn her blouse, Rameshwar has closed her mouth and breasts of the complainant were pressed by all the three persons they also bit on back of the complainant. The complainant raised alarm, then Deepu Kaurav asked what happened, then all the three persons opened the door and ran away abusing in the name of caste and threatened her to see her. On the second day the when complainant was going to Gohad on taxi Rameshwar was also sitting in the taxi. Rameshwar pressed the breasts of the complainant, on raising alarm Deepu and Rakesh intervened. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that applicant has to committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated. The co-accused Rameshwar Dayal has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 24.4.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2121/2014. There is no criminal antecedents of the applicant, hence prayed for anticipatory bail. 7. The prayer is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer as well as by the counsel appearing for the complainant submitting that the applicant is not a member of SC, ST, hence his case cannot be said to be identical with the co-accused Rameshwar Dayal. There is no criminal antecedents of the applicant, hence prayed for anticipatory bail. 7. The prayer is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer as well as by the counsel appearing for the complainant submitting that the applicant is not a member of SC, ST, hence his case cannot be said to be identical with the co-accused Rameshwar Dayal. It is further submitted that statement of the complainant is supported by the medical evidence. 8. Case diary perused. Looking to the allegation against the applicant coupled with the fact that co-accused Rameshwar Dayal has been granted anticipatory bail and the fact that report of the incident has been lodged after 25 days, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and he will co-operate in the investigation. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 9. This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicant is free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court. 10. C.C. as per rules.