PRASHANT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Case-diary perused.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a youth aged about 25 years and he has not committed any offence. After completion of his schooling, the applicant shifted to Indore and he took admission in the course of Bachelor of Engineering in Acropolis Institute of Technology and Research, Indore, in the month of June 2013. In February, 2014, he shifted in the house of the complainant as tenant. The applicant has completed his graduation in the year 2017 and Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 30/07/2019 17:35:40 thereafter he started preparation for civil service examination staying at Indore in the house of complainant. It is further submitted that proximity between the complainant and applicant has increased after his graduation and the applicant since beginning, was trying to explain and convince the complainant that he is younger to her and she is a married lady having two kids, thus there are no chances of any future relationship between them. However, complainant was desperately in love with the applicant and continuously bothering him to have relationship with her. Whereas the applicant was trying to clearly convey his thoughts and inability to have any kind of relationship with the complainant. In this regard whats-app messages between the applicant and the complainant are also available. It is also submitted that the complainant was married lady, therefore, she never wanted to marry to applicant, nor any promises was ever made by the applicant. The allegation made by the complainant is totally false and ill motivated against the applicant. The complainant threatened the applicant that if he will not resume his relationship with her, then he will have to face dire consequences. The incident alleged to have been taken place between 16/09/2018 to 27/12/2018, however, the FIR has been lodged on 12/05/2019 with a delay of 5 months and no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecutrix regrading the delay. The applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation. There is no possibility of absconsion or tampering of the evidence if the applicant is released on bail. Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant opposes the application contending that there are specific allegation made by the prosecutrix against the applicant. On the pretext of marriage he made sexual relationship with the complainant and later on when the prosecutrix got divorce from her husband, then the applicant refused to marry her. Hence they prayed for rejection of the application.