The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
(SURAJ @ SAGAR YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
Gwalior, Dated : 24-08-2018
Shri Prem Singh Bhadouria, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri G.S.Chouhan, learned Public Prosecutor for the
Perused the case diary.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail. The applicant is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.324/2018
registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Gwalior for the offence
punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC.
Shri Bhadouria, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is a lawyer and is practicing at Gwalior, therefore, there is no
likelihood of his absconsion and on this ground he should be enlarged on
It is also submitted that the applicant had appeared in Civil Judge
Examination and the marriage of the applicant was to take place with the
prosecutrix but as he could not pass entrance examination conducted for
Civil Judge, false case has been registered against him after five months
of the alleged incident. It is submitted that it is a case of false accusation
or at best that of consent. On such ground that the incident had taken place
on 10.2.2018 and the FIR has been lodged on 25.7.2018 after five
months’ lapse and there is no explanation in lodging such delayed FIR by
the prosecutrix, it is submitted that engagement had already taken place
with the prosecutrix but because of failure of the applicant in the entrance
examination, this report had been lodged.
When learned counsel for the applicant is asked to show from the
bail application as to whether he has taken such grounds, learned counsel
for the applicant submits that such grounds are not mentioned in the bail
application but they were taken before the Court of Fifth Additional
Sessions Judge and Special Judge POCSO but even that court has not
considered such grounds and has rejected application for anticipatory
bail without mentioning of the grounds taken by the applicant.
When learned counsel for the applicant is requested to show any
ground taken to this effect that such arguments were advanced before the
learned Special Judge but have not been considered, then he has
expressed his inability to show any ground being raised in the petition.
As far as the case of the prosecution is concerned, it is submitted
by the learned Public Prosecutor Shri G.S.Chouhan that the reason for
delay in lodging the FIR can be deduced from the statement recorded by
the prosecutrix under Section 164 before the JMFC. It is submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor that the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
reveals that the applicant is the younger brother of husband of the sister
of the prosecutrix. They are known to each other and related to each
other. She was taken out of the house on the pretext of attending a
birthday party and then at his house he had offered a cold drink on 10th
February 2018 and after consuming such cold drink she had lost her
consciousness. When she recovered her consciousness, she found herself
without any cloth. When she asked the applicant Suraj, then he had
threatened her and kept on blackmailing her as he had taken certain
photographs. Under threat, she had not informed anybody about the
incident but on 21.7.2018 he had uploaded her photographs on a forged
Face Book ID when prosecutrix had informed her father about the
incident and then FIR was registered on 25.7.2018. It is also mentioned
that applicant Suraj is in possession of a video showing the prosecutrix
and the applicant in a compromising position. It is also pointed out that
the applicant has no respect for privacy of a woman and has enclosed
several photographs alongwith this bail application, authenticity of which
is yet to be verified.
As far as plea taken by the applicant that he was engaged with the
prosecutrix and they were to marry each other after declaration of result
of Civil Judge Examination conducted by the High Court of M.P.
Jabalpur, it is apparent that the final result of the main examination was
declared 06.04.2018 and interviews were conducted from 24.04.2018 to
09.05.2018. This main examination was held on 30.12.2017 and
31.12.2017. The result of the preliminary examination was declared on
8.12.2017. Thus, in the light of the admission made by the learned
counsel for the applicant that applicant had failed in the preliminary
examination, the story developed by the learned counsel for the
applicant, though not mentioned in the pleadings, can not be relied upon
as the applicant had failed in the Civil Judge Examination on 8.12.2017
itself and examination for the year 2018 has yet not been conducted.
As far as delay is concerned, there is reasonable explanation for
delay. If a girl is raped and is blackmailed, then with a view to save her
honour and prestige from the outside world specially under the social
milieu prevailing in India, a girl would like to keep such incident as
confidential hoping that one day she will be able to come out of it and
when such act of threatening turns into blackmailing and things become
unbearable like in the present case, it happened on 21.7.2018 when some
of her photographs were posted on a fake Face Book ID by the applicant,
the FIR has been lodged. Therefore, merely on the ground of delay in FIR
or on the ground of consent, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged
on anticipatory bail.
Ground developed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant was engaged to the prosecutrix is not borne out from any of the
documents on record. There are no documents on record to show that
ever engagement between the prosecutrix and the applicant had taken
As far as plea of applicant being an advocate is concerned, the fact
is that his provisional registration certificate valid from 10.04.2017 to
09.04.2019 has been placed on record as Annexure P/3, as was issued by
the State Bar Council of M.P. Jabalpur on 10.04.2017. This certificate
places greater responsibility of a good moral conduct on the applicant
after being registered as an Advocate and there was greater
responsibility on his shoulder to conduct himself in a more responsible
manner rather than threatening, coercing and blackmailing the
In view of such facts, as have been discussed above, this court is
of the opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any case in
enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail. Thus, the application for
anticipatory bail fails and is dismissed.
Digitally signed by SANJEEV
Date: 2018.08.27 18:52:54 +05’30’