The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC No. 61940 of 2021 (AMAN AACHARYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 04-01-2022 Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Shri G.P. Patel, counsel for the complainant.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant Aman Aacharya apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.1025/2021 registered at Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 366, 376, 376(2)(n), 506 of the IPC.

As per prosecution case, earlier applicant made physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and thereafter he denied to marry her. It is further alleged that on 10/10/2021 when prosecutrix was alone in her house applicant came their and committed rape with her. Thereafter he used to threaten and harass her. Due to which prosecutrix lodged a report against him.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is alleged that lastly the applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix on 10.10.2021 while prosecutrix lodged the report on 10.11.2021. There is no plausible explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR. In this regard the statement of prosecutrix does not corroborate by her medical examination report. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial, hence prayed for release of the applicant on anticipatory bail. In this regard, he also placed reliance on Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 181 Signature Not Verified Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector/complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant made sexual relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage thereafter he denied to marry her without any cause. So, he should not be released on anticipatory bail. In this regard, learned counsel for the objector also placed reliance on Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2019) 13 SCC 1 and Kaini Ranjan V.

State of Kerala reported in (2013) 9 SCC 113 The facts of the case Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (supra) relied on by the learned counsel of the applicant do not match with the present case. In Sonu alias Subhash Kumar (supra) the Apex Court found that there is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the prosecutrix was false since the inception, on the contrary it would appear from the contents of the FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to marry the prosecutrix which gave rise to the registration of the FIR. While in this case, sole defence of the applicant is that the prosecutrix lodge false report against her. So, that judgment does not help the applicant.

In the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013)7 SCC

675 Hon'ble Apex Court held "There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the Signature Not Verified accused was