Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 79 (MP)

VERENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2018-01-17

C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Verendra Kumar Agrawal in Crime No. 1607/2017, registered by P.S. Kotwali, District-Katni under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution case, prosecutrix is a 33 years old married woman. Petitioner Verendra Kumar Agrawal came in contact with the prosecutrix in the year 2013. Thereafter, on 2-6-2013, he called her to Ganpati Lodge, Katni and on the false promise of marriage raped her. Thereafter, he used to visit Katni and met the prosecutrix. In November 2013, he took her to Ganpati Lodge and again raped her. Likewise, he raped the prosecutrix in Saraogi Hotel Katni, in May 2014. Thereafter, he came to the house of the prosecutrix situated in Railway Colony and took Rs. 29,000/- from her, by way of loan for his sister's marriage; however, the petitioner married another woman. Thus, the petitioner had sexually exploited the prosecutrix over a period of time on false promise of marriage. The first information report of the incident was lodged on 29-11-2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is a major, mature, married woman with children. The first incident of rape is said to have been committed in the year 2013. As per the allegations, the petitioner sexually exploited the prosecutrix over a period of about 4 years but the first information report was lodged after a delay of about 4 years. In aforesaid circumstances, it clearly appears to be a case of relationship between two consenting adults for mutual sexual enjoyment. Therefore, it has been prayed that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application. 5. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail. 6. Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Verendra Kumar Agrawal, is allowed. 7. 6. Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Verendra Kumar Agrawal, is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Certified copy as per rules.