Yogendra Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J

Heard on the first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.54/2022 registered at Police Station Jaura, District Morena (MP) for the offence

punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376-D, 506 of IPC.

In brief, as per the prosecutor case is that on 25.01.2022, prosecutrix aged about 35 years, a married lady lodged a computerization complaint before

Police Station Jaura, district Morena, against the present applicant and one Keshav Singh that from 4-5 years, she is living at Singhalpura with her

family and she used to do labour work. 6-7 months before, a dispute arose between her mother-in-law (Tahi Saas) Baijayanti Jatav, due to which, she

lodged a report at Police Station Kailaras and consulting the present applicant/accused Yogendra Singh Rampuri and co-accused Keshav Singh. The

applicant/accused Yogendra Singh is an advocate. Afterwards, applicant/accused has started talking with her on telephone and proposed her for

marriage and requested to leave her husband. 4-5 months before, between 2-3 P.M., applicant/accused along with co-accused Keshav Singh came to

her house. Afterwards, Keshav Singh went out side and closed the door. Thereafter, applicant/accused Yogendra Singh committed sexual intercourse

forcibly with her and threatened her, due to which she could not complained about the incident to her husband. Thereafter, on Sundays,

applicant/accused used to come to her house and committed regularly sexual intercourse with her. Again on 26.12.2021 at 2 P.M., applicant/accused

Yogendra Singh along with Keshav Singh came to her house. Keshav Singh closed the door outside. Thereafter, the applicant/accused committed

sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter on 1st January, 2022 when her husband returned from Gwalior, she could make courage to tell him about the

incident. Thereafter, when her husband went to applicant's house for talk, he threatened him that if he will divulge the fact to any one, he will kill him.

On her report, offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 376-D, 506 of IPC bearing Crime No.54/2022 was registered.

It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence in any

manner, hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case looking to the facts that prosecutrix is a married lady aged about 35 years and considering the

delay in lodging the F.I.R. without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant be

released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rs. twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent sureties of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and shall apply regular application before the trial Court as and when required. She shall further abide by the

other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands disposed of.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.