LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-121

RUCHI SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On March 06, 2019
Ruchi Saxena Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties and case diary perused. This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends her arrest in connection in Crime No. 851/2018 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District- Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) n, 376 (2) i, 354-D, 120-B of IPC, Sections 3/4,5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), Sections 67, 67-A and 67-B of Information Technology Act, 2000.

(2.) Applicant is a lady aged about 38 years and is a Corporator in Municipal Corporation, Vidisha. She is apprehending her arrest because of registration of case referred above.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant submits that case is of false implication. The police authorities are taking reliance over the statement of co-accused Dr. Piyush Saxena, who happens to be applicant's husband to fasten liability over the applicant ignoring the legal position that statement of her husband is exculpatory in nature; whereas, applicant is not involved in offence. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kalpnath Rai Vs. State (through CBI), AIR 1998 SC 201 in this regard. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pancho Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 523 to submit that confession of co-accused does not constitute substantial evidence. It is further submitted that the instant application under Section 438 of Cr.P.c. has been preferred before the filing of charge-sheet and even otherwise,the application for anticipatory bail will lie even if the charge-sheet has been filed by placing reliance over judgment reported in the case of Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 2 SCC 684. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2016) 1 SCC 152 and submits that applicant is participating in investigation and no chance of her absconsion exist.