Rajiv @ Raju Taretiya vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Although this case is listed today on I.A. No. 4315/13, an application for interim bail, however, as the case diary is available, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard finally. Perused the case diary.

This is first bail application filed by the applicant u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 167/13 registered at P.S. Mahila Padav, District Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 354(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

As per prosecution case, the applicant is residing in front of the house of the complainant. Whenever, the complainant used to visit the temple and used to go office, applicant used to follow her and did some indecent acts. On 7.7.13, the daughter of the complainant, who was playing outside the house, came and told the complainant that Raju lift her on his lap, opened her underwear and inserted a finger on her private part. The complainant asked the applicant who met her in front of the house that why he did so with her daughter. The applicant replied that he will do it, what will she do. The complainant did not report the matter due to her reputation. Thereafter, she came to know that applicant is lodging false report against her, then she narrated the incident to councillor Sudha Dubey and lodged a written complaint at police Station, Mahila Thana Padav.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence. The report has been lodged after 35 days of the incident. The mother of the applicant is a social worker and contested the election of councillor of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, hence, Smt. Sudha Dubey is keeping jealousy with his mother. It is further submitted that on 7.7.13 complainant alongwith one Brijesh entered in the house of the applicant, insulted the mother of the applicant and also gave beating to her. The report was lodged, but the police has not taken any action, hence complaint has been filed, on which learned Magistrate has directed an enquiry. When this came to the notice of the complainant, she has lodged this false report. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The application is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor submitting that applicant is named in the FIR and the allegations against the applicant are serious. Hence, prayed for rejection of the bail application.

The applicant has filed the complaint made by his mother on 8.7.2013 to police Station, Thatipur, police Station, AJAK and also to S.P., Gwalior. Copy of the statement recorded by the JMFC, Gwalior, and order-sheets have also been filed. Copy of the representation made to I.G. and S.P. for conducting fair investigation has also been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant has also cited judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, ; Arumugam Servai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and Shobhan Singh Khanka Vs. The State of Jharkhand, , in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has laid down guiding principles for grant of bail. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the prayer of the applicant has been considered. It is true that report of the incident has been lodged after 35 days, however, taking into consideration that victim is a minor girl aged about 7 years and the allegation made against the applicant, the delay appears to be immaterial. So far as the complaints against the complainant lodged by the mother of the applicant are concerned, on the basis of these complaints, at this stage, it cannot be held that a false report has been lodged against the applicant. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the nature of the allegation and age of the victim, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby dismissed.