SANJAY KUMAWAT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and perused the challan. This is first application filed by applicant under section 439, Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 8/2006, which has been registered against the applicant under section 376 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for applicant that prosecutrix is major and she on 11.3.2006 lodged a report that applicant had committed sexual intercourse with her in the month of April, 2005, under the false promise of marrying her but later on refused to marry her because she is a handicapped women. The incident was occurred in the month of April, 2005. As per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164, Cr. P.C. on 27.10.2006, she stated that she knew the applicant from last three years. She lodged a report for the first time on 11.3.2006 in the concerned Police Station and on the basis of the written complaint. the Police registered the said crime against the applicant. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has also drew my attention to the seizure memo, by which the clothes of the prosecutrix were seized. It is also submitted that the clothes were seized vide Annexure A-III and seizure memo was prepared on 11.3.2006 but instead of being sent to FSL for Lab test, were sent to CSP Purani Chhawni Officer wherein the seal was opened on the verbal orders of CSP Pallavi Trivedi on 16.6.2006 and prosecutrix was asked to make round marks on the gown which was seized and thereafter it was closed. On 2.8.2006 also, the seal was reopened and again resealed. As per the report of FSL dated 6.10.2006. there was no human semens and blood stains found present on the clothes of the prosecutrix. It is lastly submitted that in the month of April, 2005, applicant was on duty in Bhopal as Personal Security Office to Ex-C.M.

(3.) Looking to the fact that the complainant is major and applicant had sexual intercourse with her consent. She consented on promise of marriage. Facts and circumstances proved that prosecutrix was a consenting party to alleged act of sexual intercourse by applicant. It cannot be said that her consent was obtained by putting in fear of death or of hurt. She lodged a complaint after a period of one year at the instance of the Police Authorities, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. In the event of his arrest, it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50.000.00 (Rs. Fifty thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.