Vikram Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime

No.1328/2019 registered at Police Station Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain District Ujjain (MP) for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

The applicant is in custody since 10.12.2019.

As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix regarding commission of rape, the case has been registered against

the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The prosecutrix is a major lady

aged about 33 years; and according to her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the year 2004 she

married with one Rajesh Tiwari. However, she has taken divorce from her first husband and started living with the applicant. She remained live in

relationship with the applicant for a period of about three years; and during which, physical relationship also developed between them, due to which

she also got pregnant in the month of July, 2019, however, due to rupture of Fallopian Tube, her pregnancy was terminated. The aforesaid facts

clearly indicate that the prosecutrix was the consenting party. Although she claims that the applicant made a promise to marry with her, therefore, she

consented for the physical relationship; and later on, he refused to marry with her. However, the prosecutrix was already a married woman and she

has not taken divorce from her first husband under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, marriage of the applicant was not possible

with the prosecutrix; and knowing this fact, she remained with the applicant for a considerable period and also consented for physical relationship.

Hence, there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the present crime. The applicant is in custody since 10.12.2019. The investigation is over

and charge sheet has already been filed. There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail. Conclusion

of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

By order dated 26.02.2020, this Court directed learned Public Prosecutor for the non applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh to keep present the

prosecutrix along with the documents regarding her divorce from first husband.

Today, the prosecutrix is present in person and she has filed an agreement by which she has taken divorce from her first husband, but there is no

document available on record to show that she filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for taking divorce from her husband;

and no such decree has been passed by Competent Court.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the bail application by contending that no sufficient ground is

made out for releasing the applicant on bail; hence he prayed for rejection of the application.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the

merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his / her furnishing a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his

/ her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he / she shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial

and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy, as per rules.