SUKHLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri K. S. Patel, learned counsel for the Objector/complainant. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.103/2016 punishable for offences under Sections 376(2), 506 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kewlari, District Seoni.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the Objector the case is serious in nature of extended rape for a period of five years from June 2011 where according to the prosecution the marriage of the applicant and the prosecutrix was fixed to be done at a later date. However, in June 2011, the applicant is said to have broken down the will of the prosecutrix and had physical relations with her against her wishes and upon her resistance, he is said to have threatened her of breaking the alliance. The prosecutrix is stated to have said that in order to save the prospective marriage from breaking down, she was forced to continue to the illegal demands of physical gratification by the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant further states that in 2014 after the house of the applicant was constructed and ready the applicant is alleged to have continued with his unlawful demand of physical gratification on the threat of breaking the prospective marriage on account of which the applicant is said to have succeeded yet again. Prosecutrix on her resisting, the applicant is alleged to have told her that he has made a video of the physical relationship between the two and that he would make the same go viral. Thereafter, in the year 2015, the learned counsel for the Objector states, that once the education of the applicant was completed the prosecutrix is stated to have told the applicant herein to now solemnize the marriage upon which the applicant is alleged to have refused by stating that his family has refused to accept her on account of her short height. The prosecutrix is said to have been devastated and thereafter, in the year 2016 upon realizing that she has nothing further to lose, she gathered courage and is said to have informed her sister and thereafter, registered an FIR on 5.5.2016. This Court has put a specific question to Mr. G.S. Thakur, the learned counsel for the State whether any video of the offending act has been recovered from the applicant, to which the learned counsel for the State has stated that since this is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. there has been no opportunity to interrogate the applicant here. He has however, fairly stated that the prosecutrix has not given any material to show that the alleged video exists or the same has been made viral by the applicant. Mr. Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the applicant has stated that this is a case of consent which has gone on for a period of about five years and this has arisen out of a conflict between the father of the prosecutrix and that of the applicant, where the prosecutrix's father is said to have been cultivating the lands of the father of the applicant on account of which an amount of Rs.4 lakhs is said to have been accruable from the father of the prosecutrix to the father of the applicant and upon non -payment of the said amount, the animosity between the two families has arisen.