Sonu Namdev @ Sultan vs State Of M.P

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.218/2021 registered at Police Station Bhonti Distt. Shivpuri for offence under

Sections 376, 506 of I.P.C.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in fact the applicant had given an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the husband of the prosecutrix and

when he demanded money back, he has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that even from the FIR, it is clear that the offence of rape is alleged to

have been committed by the applicant on two occasions i.e. about one and half months prior to the date of FIR and secondly, on 10.7.2021. It is

submitted that so far as the allegation of rape about one and half month prior to the date of FIR is concerned, it is admitted position that no complaint

was made by the prosecutrix either to her husband our to anybody and even FIR was not lodged. It is also clear from the FIR as well the statement of

the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC that when the applicant on 10.7.2021 demanded money, then it is alleged that he committed rape.

It is submitted that if the FIR is taken on its face value, then there was no occasion for demand of money and thus the contention of the applicant that

there was money transaction between the applicant and the husband of the prosecutrix, and in order to avoid payment of the said amount, he has been

falsely implicated is plausible. It is further submitted that applicant is a reputed member of the society and in case, he is taken in custody, then it would

tarnish his reputation. The applicant is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tempering

with prosecution case.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the State Counsel. However, after going through the police case diary, it is fairly conceded that

no complaint was made by the prosecutrix about commission of rape by the applicant on the first occasion and even on 10.7. 2021. It is specifically

alleged in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under section 164 of CrPC that the applicant had demanded money.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the State.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU

W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Powered Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the

prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under :

“The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID

â€" 19).

Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus

within the prisons is controlled.

We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services

Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which

class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory

could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are undertrial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or

less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.

It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid,

depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is

charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate.â€​

Considering the allegations, as well as considering the fact the deteriorating situation in view of second wave of Covid19 pandemic, and without

commenting on the merits of the case, it is directed that if the applicant appears before the Investigating officer on or before 24.08.2021 and furnishes

his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. One Lac) to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, then he shall be released on bail. The

applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall follow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local

Administration (General or Specific) from time to time for combating Covid19.

The other conditions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. shall remain the same.

This order shall remain in force, till the conclusion of Trial. In case of bail jump, or violation of any of the condition(s) mentioned above, this order shall

automatically lose its effect.

In case, if the applicant fails to appear before the investigating officer on the specified date, then this order shall lose its effect.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021 in Criminal

Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.

With aforesaid observations, this application is Allowed.