Krishna @ Jeetu vs State Of M.P. & Anr

G.S.Ahluwalia, J

It is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the complainant has been informed about the pendency of this appeal, as required under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Case Diary is available.

This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by the order dated 19/02/2021 passed by Special Judge, Gwalior rejecting the anticipatory bail application.

The appellant apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 37/2021 registered by Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1) (W-ii) and 3(2)(v-A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "SC/ST Act").

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that according to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a married lady residing separately from her husband. A friendship was developed between the prosecutrix and the appellant and it is alleged that the appellant had physical relationship with her on several occasion. However, it is alleged that those physical relationship were developed without her consent. It was further alleged that about seven days prior to lodging the FIR the appellant extended a threat that in case, if the prosecutrix informs anybody about the appellant, then he would kill her and he also forcibly committed rape on her and also insulted her by calling her by her caste name.

It is submitted that in case, if the entire allegations are accepted, then it is clear that the act of abusing the prosecutrix by calling her by her caste name must have taken inside the room, which is not a place within public view. It is further submitted that except by saying that the prosecutrix was not willing for physical relationship, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had ever committed rape on her. On the contrary, it is specifically mentioned in the FIR that for the last 4-5 months, the appellant was in the physical relationship with the prosecutrix, but she never disclosed this fact to any other person. It is further submitted that under facts and circumstances of the case, the bar as contained under Section 18 and 18-A of the Act may not be applicable. 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 appeal is opposed by the Counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the appellant has a criminal history and one more offence under Section 323, 294, 147, 148, 149 and 452 of IPC was registered in the year 2018.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the facts that it has not been clarified as to whether the prosecutrix was humiliated in a public place or a place within public view, this Court is of the considered opinion that the bar contained under Section 18 and 18-A of the Act may not be applicable. Further in the light of the fact that since the prosecutrix is married woman and the allegations are that for the last 4-5 months, the appellant was in the physical relationship with her and without commenting on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed. If the appellant appears before the Investigating Officer (Arresting Officer) on or before 02/04/2021, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr. P. C.

It is made clear that in case if the appellant fails to appear before the Investigating Officer (Arresting Authority) on or before 02/04/2021, then this order in respect of the appellant shall lose its effect and the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to take him in custody.

C.C. as per rules.