Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 350 (MP)

Kiledar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-03-02

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2022
JUDGMENT G.S. ahluwalia, J. - This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 09/02/2022 in connection with Crime No.501/2021 registered at Police Station Bamore, District Morena for offence under Sections 366, 376(d), 376(2)(h), 323 and 506 of IPC. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that this Court by a detailed order dated 24/01/2022 passed in MCRC No.3781/2022 has granted bail to co-accused Shriniwas Gurjar and the case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Shriniwas Gurjar. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant. It is submitted that the reasons assigned by this Court for granting bail to co-accused Shriniwas Gurjar would also apply to the present applicant. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. This Court by order dated 24/01/2022 passed in MCRC No.3781/2022 has granted bail to co-accused Shriniwas Gurjar by observing as under:- 'It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix who is aged about 20 years lodged a FIR that she was residing in her parental home along with her mother and is carrying a pregnancy of eight months. about three months back, at about 7 to 8 pm she was sitting in her rented room, and her mother was preparing food. at that time 14 to 15 persons came there including the applicant, her husband ajay Gurjar and father- in- law Sultan Gurjar and tried to drag her. When her mother and other persons intervened in the matter then they were assaulted and attempt was made to forcefully abduct her by putting her in the vehicle. When she was continuously resisting, then one person gave lathi blow on her head and thereafter she lost her consciousness and when she regained her consciousness, she found that she was completely without clothes and was lying on the floor of the car. The husband was sitting on the front seat of the car and the car was parked by the side of a canal. Thereafter, they took her to the house of one Sabha Ram Gurjar. The husband was sitting on the front seat of the car and the car was parked by the side of a canal. Thereafter, they took her to the house of one Sabha Ram Gurjar. She was kept in a forest area for 7 to 8 days and she was being guarded by various persons, including her husband ajay Gurjar and father in law Sultan Gurjar. It is alleged that applicant and other accused persons committed rape on her. Thereafter she was brought back to the house of Sabha Ram Gurjar from where they shifted her to the house of Ramlakhan. Thereafter she was taken to the house of Suresh and Bhabuti. again She was shifted to the house of Sabha Ram Gurjar. Whenever the police came in search of her, they used to remove her from the house. When her mother filed writ of habeaus corpus before the High Court, then she was produced by the police before the High Court and as she was under threat therefore, she did not disclose anything in the Court. It is submitted that infact the prosecutrix has lodged a false report. There appears to be some dispute between her and her husband and father- in-law which has been given colour of gang rape. When the prosecutrix was produced before the High Court, then not only she was in police protection but she was in the protection of the High Court and it is incorrect to say that she could not collect her courage to depose the above mentioned allegations. The applicant is in jail from 12.11.2021. Furthermore, prosecutrix was allegedly abducted 25.08.2021 whereas the FIR was lodged on 11.11.2021. Furthermore, the prosecutrix was handed -over to the custody of her mother on 22.10.2021, but again the prosecutrix took 20 days to lodge the report. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.' Per contra, the application is opposed by the Counsel for the State. It is submitted by Shri Singh that since the prosecutrix was afraid of threatening extended by the accused persons, therefore, she could not disclose the allegations before the High Court. However, the allegations are that she was gang raped. The Counsel for the complainant has also supported the prosecution case and opposed the bail application. It is submitted by Shri Singh that since the prosecutrix was afraid of threatening extended by the accused persons, therefore, she could not disclose the allegations before the High Court. However, the allegations are that she was gang raped. The Counsel for the complainant has also supported the prosecution case and opposed the bail application. In view of the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, this Court called the file of W.P. No. 21901/2021 which was filed by her mother under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of habeaus corpus. In the said writ petition, it was specifically mentioned by the mother of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix is the legally wedded wife of ajay Gurjar and Sultan Singh, her father-in-law. In the writ petition FIR in Crime No. 358/2021 registered at Police Station Banmore, Distt. Morena is also annexed, in which it is alleged that on 30.08.2021 at about 7 pm, the mother of the prosecutrix was sitting outside door of her house. at that time her son-in-law ajay Gurjar, Kiledar and Indel Gurjar started abusing her filthily and scolded as to why she does not send her daughter with him. When the mother of the prosecutrix objected as to why they are abusing her, then it was alleged that ajay, husband of the prosecutrix assaulted on the thigh of her right leg by a danda, Bharat assaulted on her shoulder by a danda and Indel assaulted by danda on her right waist. after hearing her cries Ramdeen Gurjar and Ramanuj Gurjar came there and saved her and they were also challenging that she would be killed in future. Thus, it is clear that if the prosecutrix was already abducted on 25.08.2021, then why was the need of the husband of the prosecutrix to come back to the house of the prosecutrix and to scold her mother. Furthermore, if the prosecutrix was already abducted on 25.08.2021, then why this fact was not mentioned in the FIR.' Since, no distinguishable feature could be pointed out by the counsel for the parties and without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. Furthermore, if the prosecutrix was already abducted on 25.08.2021, then why this fact was not mentioned in the FIR.' Since, no distinguishable feature could be pointed out by the counsel for the parties and without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on 18.03.2021 in Criminal appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant. Certified copy as per rules.