AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 684 wordsSubodh Abhyankar, J
This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.127/2020 registered at Police Station Devnagar, District Raisen for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 of the IPC.
The allegation against the applicant is that he is father-in-law of the prosecutrix and on 21.03.2020 while she was travelling along with her father-in-law, at around 9 to 10 p.m. she was raped by him and subsequently, FIR to this effect was lodged on 21.08.2020.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of matrimonial dispute only which has been given the colour of rape with a view to falsely implicate the present applicant. It is further submitted that the date of the incident is said to be 21.03.2020 whereas on account of matrimonial dispute between the prosecutrix and her husband, who happens to be son of the present applicant, a compromise also took place on 17.05.2020, which was also recorded in writing and signed by all the parties concerned.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that thereafter a false complaint was also filed on 31.07.2020 under the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC alleging demand of dowry and as the applicant was also granted anticipatory bail by the police itself, the prosecutrix with a view to wreak vengeance again lodged the present FIR wherein it is alleged that she was raped by the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is aged around 55 years and circumstances also reveal that efforts have been made to falsely implicate the present applicant and no cogent reason has been assigned for the delay in lodging FIR especially when compromise also took place between the parties in writing. Thus, it is submitted that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail as his arrest would bring further disgrace to him and his family.
Learned P.L. for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that looking to the allegations levelled against the applicant, no case for anticipatory bail is made out, however, it is not denied that in the MLC of the prosecutrix, no positive opinion regarding rape has been given.
Learned counsel for the objector has also opposed the prayer and has reiterated the submissions as advanced by the counsel for the State.
Having considered the rival submissions and taking note of the fact that the incident took place on 21.03.2020 and FIR to this effect has been lodged after around four and a half months and in between compromise entered into between the parties regarding matrimonial dispute on 17.05.2020 and the fact that a case under Section 498-A of the IPC was also lodged against the applicant and his family members on 27.07.2020, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as no purpose would be served to arrest the applicant and his custodial interrogation is not appearing to be necessary. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the case, the present application stands allowed. It is directed that the applicant Ibrahim Khan, in the event of his arrest, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
The applicant shall further abide by the following conditions :
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and
(iv) the applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
C.c. as per rules.
