Back
Anand Pathak, J.
Balveer Singh Bundela v. State of M. P.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 5621of 2020 (Gwalior);
Decided on12.5.2020
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S.438 -- anticipatory bail -- maintainability of application -- no bar can exist against person seeking anticipatory bail -- application u/s. 438is maintainable even after filing of charge-sheet or till person is not arrested. AIR 1980 SC 1632, (2003) 8 SCC 77, (2010) 1 SCC 684, 2020 (2) JLJ 431 (SC) and 2003(1) JLJ 105 (FB) followed. (2012) 8 SCC 73 2014(1) JLJ 365 discussed. (1996)1 SCC667, (2005) 4SCC 303, AIR 2019 SC 4010, AIR 2019 SC 327, Mhetre AIR 2011 SC 312, (2012) 11 SCC 205, 2013 CrLJ 3140 and 1977 CrLJ 1708 (Madras) referred to. [Para 24
(2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 438 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 21 - scope and legislative intent of S. 438 of CrPC -- personal liberty of individual as ensured by S. 438 of CrPC -- is embodiment of Art. 21 of Constitution -- scope and legislative intent of S. 438 of CrPC is to be seen from that vantage point. [Para 25
(3) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 438, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86 -- anticipatory bail -- applicant proclaimed offender -- proceedings u/ss. 82 and 83 of CrPC are transient/interim/provisional in nature - are subject to proceedings u/ss. 84, 85 and 86 -- on basis of transient provision, valuable right of personal liberty of individual to seek anticipatory bail cannot be curtailed -- application u/s. 438 of CrPC is maintainable even if person is declared proclaimed offender in terms of S. 82. (2012) 8 SCC 73 and 2014(1) JLJ 365 followed.
[Para 31
(4) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 438 and 82 -- anticipatory bail -- maintainability of application -- proceedings u/s. 82 not given effect to yet -- only cash award declared -- said factor does not have over riding effect to create bar for filing application for anticipatory bail -- even if police authority has declared award or prepared fararipanchnama, application is maintainable -- however, it is to be seen on merits whether it deserves to be allowed as per factors enumerated in S. 438 itself -- if any of those factors are not satisfied, Court certainly has discretion to reject. AIR 1980 SC 1632 followed. [Paras 32 & 33
(5) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 438 and 82 -- anticipatory bail --physical intimacy developed on false promise of marriage -- both entered into wedlock -- grievance of prosecutrix that applicant/accused is already married -- applicant deserves consideration for anticipatory bail -- police nowhere referred criminal antecedents of applicant -- bail granted. AIR2019 SC 4010 and AIR 2019 SC 327 followed. [Para 34
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 438 && vfxze tekur && vkosnu dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk && vfxze tekur dh bZIlk djus okys O;fDr ds fo#) dksbZ otZu ugha gks ldrk && vkjksii= Qkby gksus ds i'pkr~ rd vFkok O;fDr ds fxjrkj ugha gksus rd Hkh /kkjk 438 ds v/khu vkosnu pykus ;ksX; gSA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 1632] ¼2003½8 ,l lh lh 77] ¼2010½1 ,l lh lh 684] 2020¼2½ ts ,y ts 431 rFkk 2003 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 105 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ vuqlfjrA ¼2012½8 ,l lh lh 73 rFkk ¼2014½2 ,l lh lh 171 foosfprA ¼1996½1 ,l lh lh 667] ¼2005½4 ,l lh lh 4010] , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 327] , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 327] , vkb vkj 2011 ,l lh 312] ¼2012½11 ,l lh lh 205] 2013 lh vkj ,y ts 3140 rFkk 1977 lh vkj ,y ts 1708 ¼enzkl½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 24
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 438 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 21 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 438 dh O;kfIr rFkk fo/kk;h vk'k; && naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 438 }kjk ;Fkk lqfuf'pr] O;fDr dh nSfgd Lora=rk && lafo/kku ds vuq- 21 dk ewrZ :i gS && naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 438 dh O;kfIr rFkk fo/kk;h vk'k; dks mlh n`f"Vdks.k ls ns[kk tkuk gksxkA ¼iSjk 25
¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 438] 82] 83] 84] 85 rFkk 86 && vfxze tekur && vkosnd mn~?kksf"kr vijk/kh && naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 82 vkSj 83 ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;k¡ vLFkk;h@varfje@vuafre izÑfr dh gksrh gSa && èkkjk 84] 85 vkSj 86 ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;ksa ds v/;/khu gksrh gSa && vLFkk;h micèk ds vk/kkj ij] vfxze tekur dh bZIlk djus dk O;fDr dk nSfgd Lora=rk dk ewY;oku vf/kdkj de ugha fd;k tk ldrk && O;fDr naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 82 ds fuca/kukuqlkj mn~?kksf"kr dj fn;k tk, rc Hkh] /kkjk 438 ds v/khu vkosnu pykus ;ksX; gSA ¼2012½8 ,l lh lh 73 rFkk ¼2014½2 ,l lh lh 171 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 31
¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 438 rFkk 82 && vfxze tekur && vkosnu dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk && /kkjk 82 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh vHkh izHkkoh ugha dh xbZ && dsoy uxn iqjLdkj ?kksf"kr && vfxze tekur vkosnu Qkby djus ds fy, otZu l`ftr djus gsrq mDr dkjd dk v/;kjksgh izHkko ugha gksrk && iqfyl izkfèkdkjh us iqjLdkj ?kksf"kr dj fn;k gks vFkok Qjkjh iapukek rS;kj dj fn;k gks rc Hkh] vkosnu pykus ;ksX; gS && rFkkfi] xq.kkxq.k ij ns[kk tkuk gksxk fd og Lo;a /kkjk 438 esa ifjxf.kr dkjdksa ds vuqlkj eatwj fd, tkus ;ksX; gS ;k ugha && ;fn muesa ls fdlh dkjd dh rqf"V ugha gks rks fuf'pr :i ls U;k;ky; dks ukeatwj djus dk foosdkf/kdkj gSA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 1632 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 32 ,oa 33
¼5½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 438 rFkk 82 && vfxze tekur && fookg ds feF;k opu ds vk/kkj ij 'kkjhfjd varjaxrk fodflr && nksuksa fookg caèku esa ca/ks && vfHk;ksD=h dh f'kdk;r fd vkosnd@vfHk;qDr igys ls fookfgr gS && vkosnd dh vfxze tekur fopkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gS && iqfyl }kjk vkosnd ds iwoZo`Ùk dgha fufnZ"V ugha && tekur eatwjA , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 4010 rFkk , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 327 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 34
ORDER
1. This is first bail application preferred by the applicant under section 438 of CrPC wherein he is apprehending his arrest in a case registered vide Crime No.448/2019 at Police Station Vishwavidyalaya, District Gwalior for alleged offence punishable under sections 376, 386, 506 of IPC.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that police has registered a false case against him. As per FIR, date of incident appears to be 27.10.2019 whereas FIR lodged on 15.12.2019, apparently delayed in nature. Applicant and prosecutrix entered into wedlock through Hindu rites and rituals and copy of marriage certificate and photographs in this regard are attached with the application.
3. As per allegations on the pretext of marriage, alleged rape has been committed by applicant. Some amount has been transferred in favour of the prosecutrix by the applicant which reveals that both were in relationship. Even otherwise, on the pretext of marriage if physical intimacy developed then the same does not constitute offence of rape. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2019 SC 4010 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 2019 SC 327].
4. It is further submitted that after registration of offence both tried to settle the matter and therefore, petition has been preferred under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compromise bearing MCrC No. 930/2020 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.1.2020 because the allegations were of section 376 of IPC also (in light of various judgments of Apex Court), therefore, compromise could not be given effect to. This itself indicates that domestic nature of relationship and incompatibility into it has been tried to be converted into offence of rape. Applicant is aged 41 years of age and prosecutrix is around 41-42 years of age. Therefore, at such matured stage, if two adults enter into wedlock and thereafter their domestic relationship is severed for any reason then the same does not amount to commission of offence of rape. He is reputed citizen of locality and chance of absconsion is remote. Confinement would bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience. He undertakes to cooperate in investigation and would make himself available as and when required by the investigating officer and also undertakes that he would not be source of harassment and embarrassment to the complainant party in any manner. Consequently, he prayed for bail of anticipatory nature.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further responded to the queries raised by this Court about maintainability of the application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of CrPC in view of the legal position that when any person has been declared as absconder and award of Rs. 5,000/- has been declared by the Superintendent of Police as per Police Regulation 789 (as per case diary of instant case) then his prospects to get anticipatory bail gets extinguished, learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not correct application of law because here in the present case the applicant has not been declared absconder so far as per sections 82 and 83 of CrPC. Therefore, legal bar created by the judgments of apex Court in the matter of Lavesh v. State (NCT Of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 73], as well as in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma [2014(1) JLJ 365 = (2014) 2 SCC 171] is not applicable in the present set of facts.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that police is at liberty to declare award over any person for apprehension who is not available for investigation but this may be their device to deny the applicant (or other similarly situated persons) a chance to get anticipatory bail.
7. On the other hand, learned PP for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and on the basis of case diary submits that the applicant is required for investigation. Rs.5,000/- as awar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
