Rakesh Gokhle vs State Of M.P

Vivek Rusia, J

This is the first bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, due to apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime

No.113/2021, Police-Station- Dahi, District- Dhar for the commission of offences under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 506 of I.P.C.

As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix has lodged an FIR against the applicant alleging that in the year 2011, she developed the friendship with this

him because both belongs to same village and community. Thereafter, they went Dhar for study and both were resided in the rented house at Dhar.

On 17.08.2021, the applicant came to her rented house and gave offer to marry her and made physical relationship with her. Thereafter, they continue

to live together and made physical relationship several time. In the year 2017-18, the applicant got a government job in the police department and since

then he is refusing to marry her. Hence, she felt cheated and lodged report against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and prosecutrix belongs to Bhilala community and as per customs prevailing in their

community they have performed the marriage which is called “ Bhagodaâ€. If the prosecutrix is not satisfied with this marriage, the applicant is

ready to perform the registered marriage, which he has stated in his letter dated 19.07.2021 addressed to higher authorities much prior to the

registration of FIR. He further submits that as per the customs, the father of the prosecutrix is demanding Rs. 2,00,000/-, which he unable to give him,

therefore, entire case has been cooked up. He referred police Prativedan, according to which prosecutrix stated that her relationship with this

applicant was known to her parents. The applicant is police constable with no criminal past. If he is arrested, he will loose his job. In para 6.2 of his

bail application, he specifically stated that he has performed the marriage and still he is ready to keep her as wife. In these circumstances, applicant

may be enlarged on bail.

Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State read out the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and produced the medical

report of the prosecutrix in which there is no definite opinion about the commission of rape. However, the prosecutrix is admitting her relationship with

the applicant since 2011.

Considering the fact and circumstances, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of

arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the

following conditions:

(a) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him

from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(C) If the applicant is found involved in any criminal case of the same nature during this bail period, this order granting the benefit of anticipatory bail

shall be liable to be cancelled; Certified copy as per rules.