Ashish Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2017

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-21470-2017

sh
(ASHISH VISHWAKARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

e
2

ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-11-2017

Pr
Shri Sampoorn Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Akhilesh Singh, Government Advocate for the
a
respondent/State.

hy

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under
ad

section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf
M

of petitioner Ashish Vishwakarma in Crime No. No.1243/2015
registered by P.S.-Garha, District-Jabalpur under Sections
of

354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

rt

As per the prosecution case, as reflected in the first
ou

information report, petitioner Ashish Vishwakarma was a
Journalist and prosecutrix was Counselor of a ward at
C

Jabalpur. The prosecutrix lodged a first information report in
h

P.S. Garha on 16.11.2017 to the effect that about 2 years
ig

before the date of the report, petitioner Ashish came in
H

contact with prosecutrix in her professional capacity. After
the death of Deepmala, wife of petitioner Ashish, the
prosecutrix, who is a 30 years old married lady, had gone to
the residence of the petitioner along with her husband to
console him. A case was registered in respect of suicide
committed by Deepmala against the petitioner. After his
return from jail about one year before lodging of report, the
petitioner visited the house of the prosecutrix and started to
indulge in obscene behaviour. He threatened the prosecutrix
that he was a Journalist and would destroy the political career
of the prosecutrix. He alleged that the prosecutrix and her
husband had got wife of the petitioner killed and in the case

sh
the petitioner had to spent Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.11,00,000/- and
the prosecutrix and her husband should reimbursed the same.

e
ad
On 09.10.2015 also, the petitioner called the prosecutrix and
indulged in obscene talks. At about 10:30 p.m. he visited
Pr
house of the prosecutrix and repeated his act. When her
a
husband arrived, the petitioner started to beat her husband.

hy

He also caught hold of the hand of the prosecutrix and
ad

indulged in a scuffle. In order to protect the prosecutrix, her
husband picked something lying there and hit the petitioner
M

with it. As such, for a period of about 2 years, the petitioner
of

has been mentally and physically harassing and exploiting the
prosecutrix.

rt

In the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 of the
ou

Code of Criminal Procedure she stated on 02.12.2015 that at
C

the time of “Holi” the petitioner had administered “Bhang” in
milk to the prosecutrix and had raped her in an inebriated
h
ig

condition in a hotel. He also took her obscene photographs
H

and started to blackmail her. He also used to threaten that he
would kill her husband and son of the prosecutrix. On
09.10.2015 the petitioner had come and had misbehaved with
the prosecutrix and had torn her gown and had physically
exploited her, her husband had arrived and a scuffle ensued,
wherein the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, on 09.10.2015
the petitioner was invited by the prosecutrix and her husband
to their residence to celebrate his birthday. During the
celebration, a quarrel started and Hridesh, the husband of the
prosecutrix and Neeraj caused injuries to the petitioner with

sh
sharp edged objects. On the report of the petitioner lodged at
night, a case under section 294 and 307 read with section 34

e
ad
of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the husband
of the prosecutrix and Neeraj Rajpoot. In order to pressurize
Pr
the petitioner to enter into a compromise in that case, the
a
present FIR has been falsely lodged by the prosecutrix. In the
hy

first information report, there is no allegation regarding rape;

ad

however, in the statement under section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure the rape has been alleged. The
M

improvements introduced in the statement under section 164
of

of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not find mention in the
first information report. It is highly improbable that a woman,
rt

who is in politics and is a Counselor, would be cowed down by
ou

the empty threats of a journalist. The incident had occurred
C

two years ago; therefore, it has been prayed that the
petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
h
ig

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on
H

the other hand has opposed the application.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by
learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this
Court, petitioner deserves to be released on anticipatory bail.
Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under
section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf
of petitioner Ashish Vishwakarma, is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner
shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same
amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his

sh
appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the
case and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub

e
ad
section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified copy as per rules.

Pr
a
hy

(C V SIRPURKAR)
JUDGE
ad
M
of

Digitally signed by BIJU BABY
b 2017.11.23 21:27:35
Date:

rt

-08’00’
ou
C
h
ig
H

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *