Vijendra @ Vijay Kanjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 1 February, 2018

1

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.302/2018
(Vijendra alias Vijay Kanjar vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 01.02.2018
Shri V.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel, with
Shri R.K. Joshi, learned counsel, for the applicant.
Shri S.S. Dhakad, learned Public Prosecutor, for
the respondent/State.

Prosecutrix Basmati Bai with her father
Samandar Singh are present in person before this
Court. Their presence is marked.

Shri B.S. Parihar, the S.H.O. of Police Station
Kumbhraj and Investigating Officer of the case, is also
present in person before this Court. His presence is
also marked.

The background facts of the case are that this
Court has directed to Shri B.S. Parihar to keep the
prosecutrix present in person before this Court
because the prosecutrix has stated in the FIR and her
statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 of
the Cr.P.C. that three persons are involved in the
offence of rape committed upon her. They are Vijay
Kanjar, Vijendra @ Vijay Kanjar and Sangeeta @ Tillo,
the wife of Vijendra @ Vijay Kanjar. However, Shri
B.S. Parihar as the Investigating Officer of the case,
has filed the charge sheet in the case before the Court
concerned stating that Vijay Kanjar and Vijendra @
Vijay Kanjar are one and the same person. As such, in
the offence of rape against the prosecutrix, Vijendra
@ Vijay Kanjar and his wife Sangeet are only
involved.

This Court has asked the prosecutrix that she
2

has stated in the FIR and her statements under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that at the time of
incident Vijay Kanjar took her on a motorcycle with
co-accused Sangeeta from the place of occurrence
and Vijendra @ Vijay Kanjar followed them on another
motorcycle. So tell this Court without any fear
whether Vijay Kanjar and Vijendra @ Vijay Kanjar are
one and the same person or the different persons.
She has told this Court that Vijay Kanjar and Vijendra
@ Vijay Kanjar is one and the same person. However,
she could not satisfy this Court as to why she has
stated in the FIR and her statements under
Sections
161 and
164 Cr.P.C. that Vijay Kanjar and Vijendra @
Vijay Kanjar are the different persons. It appears to
this Court that under the pressure of the police the
prosecutrix is afraid of telling the truth to the Court.

In view of the above, I direct the Inspector
General of Police Gwalior Zone to appoint a police
officer in the rank of Additional S.P., who is presently
not posted in Guna district, to verify the factum that
in Crime No.223/2017 registered at Police Station
Kumbhraj Guna under
Sections 376, 366 and 34 of
the IPC whether Vijay Kanjar and Vijendra @ Vijay
Kanjar are the two different persons or one and the
same person. He is directed to submit the report on
this point by 26.02.2018 positively.

A copy of this order be sent within three working
days to the Inspector General of Police Gwalior Zone
at his office address with covering letter.

Heard arguments on the bail plea.

Perused case diary and material on record.

3

This is the first application filed by applicant
Vijendra alias Vijay Kanjar under
Section 439 of the
CrPC for grant of bail in Crime No.223/2017
registered at Police Station Kumbhraj district Guna
against him and others for the offences punishable
under
Sections 376, 366 and 34 of the IPC.

According to the prosecution, on 24.6.2017 the
prosecutrix lodged the oral FIR stating that in the
night of 22.06.2017 at about 10.30 pm near the water
tank of Dhampuri Kanjar Ka Dera near village
Bhamawad under the territorial jurisdiction of Police
Station Kumbhraj district Guna accused Vijay Kanjar
gave her a proposal to marry her. Thereafter, he took
her on his motorcycle with the wife of Vijendra @
Vijay Kanjar Sangeeta in his house situated at Kanjar
Ka Dera New Delhi district Narsinghgarh (M.P.). On
the other motorcycle Vijendra @ Vijay Kanjar followed
them. Vijay Kanjar kept her in his residence for two
days and committed sexual intercourse several times
against her wishes and on the third day co-accused
Sangeeta dropped her at Kumbhraj.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant is in custody in the case since
18.09.2017. After referring to the FIR and the
statements of the prosecutrix under
Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C., he submits that it was Vijay Kanjar who
had committed rape upon the prosecutrix and the role
of applicant Vijendra @ Vijay Kanjar and his wife co-
accused Sangeeta is limited to the extent that they
accompanied him. However, the police had filed the
charge sheet stating that Vijay Kanjar and Vijendra @
4

Vijay Kanjar are one and the same person without
giving cogent evidence thereof. Thus, the police had
saved the real culprit Vijay Kanjar. He submits that
the prosecutrix has stated before this Court today that
Vijay Kanjar and Vijendra @ Vijay Kanjar are one and
the same person under the influence of Shri B.S.
Parihar. He submits that the applicant is a permanent
resident of the place of occurrence and that he has no
criminal antecedents. He submits that this Court has
already granted regular bail to co-accused Sangeeta.
Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to
the applicant.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
prayer.

Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on
behalf of the parties by their counsel and the
contradictory statements of the prosecutrix made in
the FIR and under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and
before this Court, but without commenting on merits
of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is
allowed. The Court concerned is directed to release
applicant Vijendra @ Vijay Kanjar on bail upon his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) with one solvent
surety of the same amount to its satisfaction for
securing his presence in the course of trial of the
case. The applicant shall abide by all the conditions
enumerated in
Section 437 (3) of CrPC. In case of bail
jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel
5

the applicant’s bail.

As prayed by the learned Public Prosecutor, he be
also given a copy of this order.

List the case on 26.02.2018 for submission of
the report by the I.G. Gwalior Zone.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Mahajan)
Judge
van

VANDANA VERMA
2018.02.03 11:09:11 +05’30’

Leave a Comment

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