Yogesh Pawar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another - Shonee Kapoor

Court: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar

Yogesh Pawar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another on 21 June 2018

Law Point: 

JUDGEMENT

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Betul (M.P.) in Bail Application No.05/2018 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail has been dismissed.

2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.03/18, registered at Police Station AJK, District Betul for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 294, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(W)(I), 3(2)(5-A) of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant who is working as Gram Rozgar Assistant has sexually exploited the prosecutrix, aged about 23 years, on the pretext of marriage as both of them were acquainted with each other since last four years and it is only in the month of August, 2017 that the appellant took the prosecutrix to Betul and there he had sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage and thereafter continued with this act and when the prosecutrix asked him to marry her, he threatened her of dire consequences and also stated that as she belongs to scheduled caste community, he cannot marry her, hence an FIR was lodged under the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case, he is a Government employee and in case of his arrest, he shall suffer irreparable loss. The counsel has further submitted that the prosecutrix is in relationship with the appellant since last four years and it is only with a view to harass the appellant that the FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even otherwise the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 09 months for which no explanation has been provided.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1/State has also opposed the prayer and has submitted that the appellant had entered into the relationship knowing fully well that he would not be able to keep his promise and thus he is liable for his actions and is not entitled to any relief.

7. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the case diary, this Court finds that so far as the FIR is concerned, allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage have been leveled against the appellant, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the relationship was four years old is not correct as the prosecutrix herself has stated that their physical relationship started only in the month of August of 2017.

8. Be that as it may, this court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for interference as the allegation of intercourse on the pretext of marriage can only be decided after the evidence is led by the parties, specially in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675.

9. So far as the bar of anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, since prima facie appellant has made out a case, looking to the nature of the offence, the said bar is not attracted and the appellant’s arrest is not warranted. Hence, it is directed that appellant Yogesh Pawar in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The appellant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section 2 of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands allowed.

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