Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1020 (MP)

Kishore Mewda v. State Of M. P.

2020-10-06

NANDITA DUBEY

body2020
JUDGMENT Nandita Dubey, J. - This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 589/2020 registered at P.S.Kohefiza, District-Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n),323 and 506 of the IPC. 3. As per prosecution, the complainant has lodged a complaint on 01.09.2020 that the present applicant committed rape with her on 16.02.2020 and since then has been having forcible physical relationship with her. He has also given a false assurance of marriage to her, but later on, she came to know that the applicant had already been married. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of this Court to Annexures A/2 and A/3 filed along with the present application. Annexure A/2 is the FIR lodged by the same complainant on 01.07.2020 against Hemkunwar, the wife of the present applicant, wherein she has stated that she is having love affair for the last two years with the present applicant and had married him. She has further stated that the applicant has told her that he would do Court marriage after he gives divorce to his wife Hemkunwar. It has been alleged that Hemkunwar has threatened her on phone so action be taken against Hemkunwar. Annexure A/3, FIR dated 30.07.2020 was lodged by one Rani Valmiki, working as maid with Hemkunwar, that Maya Kushwaha has come to house of Hemkunwar and threatened and assaulted her and Hemkunwar. 5. Referring to the statements made in the aforesaid two FIRs, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false case has been filed by the complainant as a counter measure to the FIR dated 30.07.2020. He submits that the FIR dated 01.09.2020 is lodged suppressing the earlier two FIRs. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, (2019) 9 SCC 608 and contended that the allegations on the face of the FIR do not establish the commission of the offences alleged. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. He may be released on anticipatory bail. 6. Learned PL submitted that as per 161 Cr.P.C.statement of prosecutrix, applicant committed rape on her on 16.02.2020. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. He may be released on anticipatory bail. 6. Learned PL submitted that as per 161 Cr.P.C.statement of prosecutrix, applicant committed rape on her on 16.02.2020. It is submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant and prays for dismissal of the bail application. However, he fairly submitted that there is no past criminal antecedent against the applicant. 7. Considering the earlier FIRs (Annexures A/2 and A/3) and case diary statement, prima facie it appears that the prosecutrix knew that applicant was married and despite that continued to engage in sexual relationship with him. She continued to have a live in relationship with the present applicant for over two years and only lodged a complaint (Annexure A/4) on 01.09.2020 as a counter measure to the FIR dated 30.07.2020, lodged against her by Rani Valmiki , therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Kishore Mewada shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer. 9. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:- 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, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during trial; 5. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and 6. If the applicant commits any offence while being on anticipatory bail, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court." 10. A typed copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry to the Office of the Advocate General and to Mr. Ritesh Ghosh, learned Panel Lawyer, on their respective email addresses, for intimation to the police station concerned. 11. A typed copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry to the Office of the Advocate General and to Mr. Ritesh Ghosh, learned Panel Lawyer, on their respective email addresses, for intimation to the police station concerned. 11. Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.