Rajesh Ahirwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J

This is first bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.61/2021 registered at Police Station-Orchha Road, Distt.-Chhatarpur, M.P. for

the offence punishable under Section 376, 323, 506/34 of IPC.

As per prosecution story, on dated 29.12.2020, prosecutrix aged 35 years was alone in her house. At that time, co-accused Babulal (devar of

prosecutrix) entered in the house of prosecutrix. Thereafter, co-accused Babulal committed intercourse with her. When her husband came in the

house then she disclosed all the incident to her husband and family members but she did not lodged the report. On dated 01.03.2021, at 7 P.M. in the

evening when she reached her house, then again co-accused Babulal tried to commit intercourse with her. She cried then co-accused threatened her

and pushed her due to this she fell down. After some time, present petitioner-accused, who is also brother-in-law (devar) of the prosecutrix reached

there. She disclosed all the incident to present petitioner-accused then he asked her to live with him also as his wife and thereafter started scuffling

with the prosecutrix. At that time, her husband reached there. Then, she lodged the FIR on dated 02.03.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-accused has been falsely implicated in this case. He is brother-in-law of prosecutrix. He is

aged 19 years. He is a student. He has no previous criminal antecedent. There is no allegation against the petitioner-accused to commit intercourse

with the prosecutrix. Actually, there is previous property dispute between all the family members. Prosecutrix and her husband demanded excess

share in the property so family members implicated the false case against the petitioner-accused. In this regard, petitioner's father lodged a report on

dated 21.12.2020. Petitioner-accused has no role in this incident. Investigation is complete. No custodial interrogation is required in this case. There is

no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution. It is the time of COVID-19 due to this social distancing is very

necessary. If petitioner-accused is arrested then his future will spoiled. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State opposes the bail application.

Learned counsel for the objector submits that petitioner-accused is also involved in this matter, so he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

Having heard both the parties, on perusal of the case diary, looking to the circumstances of the case and the facts that main incident is occured on

dated 29.12.2020, it appears from the record that prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to the present petitioner-accused on dated 29.12.2020, it is

not disputed that on dated 29.12.2020, petitioner-accused was not present at the spot and he did not commit any offence, it is alleged by the

prosecution that on dated 01.03.2021, prosecutrix disclosed the incident to the present petitioner-accused then present petitioner-accused also stated

her to live with him as his wife so it appears that there is no allegation regarding intercourse against the petitioner-accused, it appears that there is

some property dispute between the family members, petitioner-accused has no previous criminal antecedent, he is aged 19 years student, it is the time

of COVID-19 pandemic due to this social distancing is very necessary, there is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution

evidence, investigation is complete, no further custodial interrogation is required in this case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case,

this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Consequently, the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. It is directed that petitioner-Rajesh Ahirwar will surrender himself

before Investigating Officer within ten days' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and then in the event of arrest, he be released on

bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

the Arresting Authority.

The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police 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.

Certified copy as per rules.