Ravi Shrivastava vs CBI

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19

outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The applicant has filed this first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.107/2020 registered at Police Station- Daboh, District- Bhind for the offences punishable

under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 of IPC and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act.

Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that the applicant was in love affair with the prosecutrix and used to talk about marriage and at that time,

he had committed intercourse with her. On 14/05/2020, the applicant called the prosecutrix and asked her to come out of her house alongwith the

clothes and mark-sheet.

When the prosecutrix came out from her house, the applicant caught hold her hands forcefully and took her behind Dharamshala temple and

committed rape upon her against her will and in the morning, the applicant asked the prosecutrix to go back to her house. On the basis of aforesaid,

crime has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 26 years of age and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also

submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to mark-sheet of Class-V of the prosecutrix, actual date of birth is 12/03/2001,

therefore, she is major. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1443/2018 in

the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. to contend that prosecutrix had agreed to have sexual intercourse on

account of her love and passion and denying to marry for some unforeseen reasons which were beyond his control, consensual physical relationship

between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in view of

COVID-19 outbreak, detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. The applicant is a permanent resident of District- Bhind

and if he is arrested, his reputation would be tarnished in the locality. There is no possibility of his fleeing if he is released on bail. He is ready to abide

by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that prosecutrix, being a minor,

application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Moreover, the correct date of birth of the prosecutrix is 01/01/2004 and prosecutrix, in

her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. categorically stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 18/05/2020, she had not

consented to have sexual intercourse, therefore, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (supra) would not be applicable in the present facts and

circumstances of the case as the applicant had malafide intention and clandestine motives, therefore, it is a clear case of rape and investigation is

pending and custodial interrogation may be required in the matter, therefore, prayer of rejection of this anticipatory bail application is made.

However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant

of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that no case for grant of

anticipatory bail is made out.

Consequently, the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant stands rejected.