RAVISHANKAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first application filed by the applicant under Sec. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of bail. The applicant is in judicial custody since 24/10/2025 in connection with Crime No.227/2025 registered at Police Station Kachnar, District Ashoknagar, for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 70(1), 49, 115(2), 296, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec. 67 of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant forcibly committed rape upon the prosecutrix and, along with his cousin brother, co-accused Anand Sharma, committed gang rape upon her. It is further alleged that the incident was recorded on a mobile phone. The prosecutrix is stated to be the legally wedded wife of the co-accused Anand Sharma.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on account of his relationship with the co-accused, Anand Sharma, who is the maternal cousin of the applicant. It is submitted that the prosecutrix and the co-accused, Anand Sharma, are legally wedded husband and wife and are accustomed to frequent quarrels and domestic disputes, during which they often abuse each other. On 22/10/2025, during daytime hours, they were again involved in such a quarrel. Upon noticing the dispute, the present applicant intervened only with the intention of counselling them and restoring peace. After pacifying both parties, the applicant returned to his own residence. Subsequently, the police arrived at the applicant's house and informed him that a criminal case had been registered against him at Police Station Kachnar, District Ashoknagar, pursuant to which he was arrested, despite his non-involvement in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Vidisha and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the State strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature. It was pointed out that the prosecutrix, in her statements recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has consistently and categorically supported the prosecution case. The learned counsel further submitted that medical examination of the prosecutrix revealed injuries on her body, which corroborate the allegations of forcible sexual assault. It was also highlighted that forensic examination has established that semen recovered from the clothes of the prosecutrix matches the DNA profile of the applicant, which constitutes strong prima facie evidence against him. In view of these circumstances, it was prayed that the bail application be rejected.