Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Atul Sreedharan
Dr. Nitin Bhargav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2019
Law Point:
JUDGEMENT
This appeal under section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with section 438 of the Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by Special Judge (S/ST Act), Mandleshwar, district Khargone, by which trial Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant under section 438 of the Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.513/2018 registered at Police Station Barwah, district Khargone for the offence punishable under sections 376, 376(2(n) of the IPC and under section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
As per prosecution case, on 29.09.2018 complainant/prosecutrix lodged a report that accused/appellant with a false promise to marry her committed rape upon her.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix is a major lady aged about 30 years. Earlier she was married with one Tulsiram and out of that wedlock she has a girl child aged about 8 years. The prosecutrix was posted as ANM at Community Health Centre, Bagod where the appellant was also posted as Medical Officer. The prosecutrix being a divorced lady made intimacy with the appellant and physical relationship was also developed between them which clearly indicates that prosecutrix was also a consenting party. Although she has made allegation against the appellant that he committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage, however, as per the FIR the appellant refused to marry her on 17.07.2018 but the FIR was lodged on 29.09.2018 i.e. after about 2 months and 12 days after his refusal. He further submits that appellant made a written complaint also against the prosecutrix to the SDOP Badwaha stating that she is trying to implicate him in false case. In these circumstances, no offence under section 376(2)(n) IPC and under section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant, hence no bar under section 18 of the Act is attracted in the matter. The appellant is a doctor by profession and there is no possibility of his tampering with the evidence and he is ready to co-operate with investigation, hence, prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available against the appellant in the case diary, without commenting upon the merit of the case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment