Purushottam Shrivas vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail, as the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.289/2023 registered at Police Station Gohad District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 506, 376 of IPC.

Prosecution case in brief is that applicant's son Meer Singh was married with the complainant on 31.5.2022. On 2.6.2023, the applicant went to complainant's house and when he returning with the complainant and reached near Reliance Patrol Pump, Gohad, applicant stopped his motorcycle for answer the call of nature, thereafter applicant sexually assaulted the complainant and when the complainant tried to call her parents, the applicant snatched her mobile phone and threats her.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a matrimonial dispute between the applicant's son Meer Singh and complainant. On 25.6.2023, at about 16:00 hours complainant after giving threats to the applicant and his son went to her matrimonial house along with her uncle Pinky Shrivas, about which the applicant's son made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind. On 6.7.2023, applicant's son filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rights against the complainant before the Family Court, Bhind wherein notices were issued to the complainant and after receiving the notice of the said application, complainant as a counter-blast, on 22.7.2023 after about one and half months of the incident, lodged an FIR against the applicant alleging therein that she was sexually harassed by the applicant. On the next day i.e. on 23.7.2023, she in her statement recorded during investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. repeated the same version while on 25.7.2023 she in her statement recorded during investigation under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. stated that the applicant sexually assaulted her. No plausible explanation has been given as to why she did not report the matter till 22.7.2023 i.e. after about a month of her return to her matrimonial house. Her statement are inconsistent about the allegations alleged against the applicant which itself shows that the whole prosecution case is false. The applicant is an Ex-Army person. He has falsely been implicated in the matter. His custodial interrogation is not required. Trial will certainly take time to conclude therefore, under such circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer and submit that the applicant being father-in-law of the applicant sexually assaulted her. Matter is under investigation. Allegtasions alleged against the applicant are of serious in nature, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, date of incident, date of FIR so also the contents of FIR and the statement of the complainant recorded during investigation under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and other facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like 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.

M.Cr.C. stands disposed of, accordingly.

Certified copy, as per Rules.