Upendra Singh Dhakad vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard.

This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.43/2019, registered at Police Station - Mahila Thana, District Jabalpur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC.

As per the FIR, the prosecutrix and the applicant both developed friendship with each other. The applicant promised the prosecutrix for marriage and on the pretext of marriage, he committed sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix consent under misconception that applicant would marry with her. Both live together for long time as a husband and wife and applicant exploited the prosecutrix sexually as his wife, but later on, the applicant took turn from the marriage and solemnized marriage with another girl. The prosecutrix got annoyed with the applicant and lodged a report against him. Police registered Crime No. 43/2019 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jabalpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a politician. The prosecutrix voluntarily consented for intercourse. The applicant never promised to get marry with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is major lady, she is trying to pressurize the applicant to get marriage with her. The applicant has falsely been implicated by the prosecutrix. More than 7 years, she spend with the applicant and remained as a consented party. When marriage of the applicant took place, then she lodged a report against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2018 SCC Online SC 3100, in the case of Shivashankar alias Shiva V. State of Karnataka and Another, 2018 SCC Online SC 3106, in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, the judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Shri Kunal Mandaliya V. The State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10600 and the order passed by the this Court in the case of Keshar Singh Bagoria Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, in M.Cr.C. No. 5730/2019, dated 15.02.2019.

Learned counsel for the objector submits that the prosecutrix was promised for the marriage by the applicant and received the consent of the prosecutrix on misconception he committed sexual intercourse with her. If, he told the prosecutrix that he would not marry with her, then prosecutrix would never consented for sexual intercourse. She was not a consenting party. She remained with the applicant as a wife, but later on, the applicant deceived her and got married with another girl. There is a strong case against the applicant, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the application. learned Dy. Advocate General and Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State vehemently opposes the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgements submitted on behalf of the applicant.

After perusal of the case diary, it is emerges out that the prosecutrix, in FIR, clearly stated that the applicant promised her to get marry with her and after receiving the consent, the applicant committed sexual intercourse with her and she allowed him as a prospective husband, but later on, the applicant deceived her. She has clearly stated everything in the FIR. After investigation, charge-sheet has not been filed by the prosecution before the Court, therefore, this Court restrained from discussing the evidence filed in the case diary being a secret documents.

Perused the statement of the prosecutrix and written report lodged by the prosecutrix, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

Hence, the application filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.