M.Cr.C.No.9209/2017
Balveer Singh vs. State of M.P.
29.08.2017
Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.V.S. Ghuraiya, learned Public Prosecutor
for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is the first bail application filed by the
applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in Crime
No.377/2017 registered at Police Station Dehat Bhind
against him and co-accused Ravi for the offences
punishable under Sections 354, 323, 506 and 34 of the
IPC.
According to the prosecution, the complainant,
who is a married woman aged about 23 years, lodged
the written report on 18.07.2017 alleging that in the
afternoon of 17.07.2017 in her native town she was
returning to her house after attending the coaching
classes. When she was near her house Balveer,
applicant herein, caught hold of her hands with sexual
intent and eve-teased her. Somehow she got herself
freed from his clutches. Thereafter, she went to the
house of applicant Balveer to complain about his
alleged act to his elders. There co-accused Ravi
committed marpeet with her, torn her wearing clothes
and threatened to kill her if she reports the matter to
the police.
M.Cr.C.No.9209/2017
Balveer Singh vs. State of M.P.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the Court below has granted anticipatory bail to the co-
accused on the ground that the complainant has given
affidavit in his favour stating that she has mentioned
his name in the FIR upon the information furnished by
the persons present at the time of incident whereas
she does not know him personally. He submits that
since the Court below has granted anticipatory bail to
the co-accused, the applicant is also entitled to get
anticipatory bail on the same footing. He also submits
that looking to the allegations levelled against the
applicant, the act of the applicant falls under Section
354-A IPC not under Section 354 IPC. He submits that
it was not the assertion of the prosecutrix in the FIR
and her statement that the applicant caught hold of
her hands to outrage her modesty. Upon the aforesaid
submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to
the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
prayer. He submits that the statement of the
complainant has also been recorded under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. in which she has reiterated what she has
stated in the FIR. He submits that the complainant has
stated in the FIR and her statement that “the applicant
had caught hold of her hands with sexual intent”
(English translation of her hindi version ^^cqjh fu;r ls esjk gkFk
idM+k^^). He submits that holding hands of the
complainant by the applicant with ill-intention amounts
M.Cr.C.No.9209/2017
Balveer Singh vs. State of M.P.
to outrage her modesty. He submits that learned
counsel for the applicant cannot claim anticipatory bail
on the ground that the Court below has granted
anticipatory bail to the co-accused because the Court
has to see the role of an accused individually in the
case.
Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and the submissions raised
on behalf of the parties by their counsel in totality and
upon the perusal of the FIR and the statement of the
complainant under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., I am not
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Hence, the application is dismissed.
(Rajendra Mahajan)
Judge
van
