AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 291 wordsB. K. Shrivastava, J
Heard on the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on 09.09.2020 on behalf of applicant Ravi Rajak who is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 258/2020, registered at Police Station, Orchha District Niwari for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452, 506/34 of I.P.C.
It is submitted by the applicant's counsel that the incident was happened on 10.08.2020 while the belated report lodged on 14.08.2020. The applicant did not try to outrage the modesty of complainant. Therefore, he should be granted anticipatory bail.
On the other side, the State opposed the application. The State also read out the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the Pinki is the eye witness of the incident who is the wife of the brother of complainant husband.
It appears from the record that during the intervening night of 10.08.20 and 11.08.2020, the husband of complainant was not at the home because he had gone to agriculture field. At about 12:00 p.m. when the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house. The both accused namely, Brijendra Yadav and applicant Ravi Rajak entered in her house. The Brijendra gagged her mouth and also put his hand upon the breast of prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix raised an alaram then Pinki Yadav reached to the spot. Thereafter, both accused fled away after giving the threat to kill her.
Therefore, the offence is related to the modesty of a woman. The accused entered in the house of prosecutrix in the night when her husband was not present.
Looking to the present situation of the society, the applicant is not entitled to get the anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is dismissed.