Veeru Jha vs State Of M.P

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.613/2020 registered at Police Station Pichhore, District Shivpuri for offence under

Section 354 of IPC and Section 7 & 8 of the POCSO, Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, the applicant alongwith two other co-accused persons caught

hold the hand of the prosecutrix and insisted that she should sit in their car. It is submitted that as per the instructions given by the applicant, the co-

accused Rahul has been granted bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and another co-accused, who is juvenile has been granted bail by the Juvenile

Justice Board. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the father of the complainant has filed an affidavit to the effect that the

complainant was unable to identify the miscreants. It is further submitted that the applicant is the student of Class 12th and he has a bright career and,

therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. So far as the affidavit given by the father of the complainant is

concerned, it is submitted that the complainant in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that in the night of the incident all

the three accused persons came to their house and pelted stones and again extended a threat. It is submitted that it appears that under the pressure of

the applicant and other co-accused persons, the father of the complainant must have given the affidavit, but even otherwise the father of the

complainant has no authority to give an affidavit as the offence was committed with the complainant. It is further submitted that the applicant has a

criminal history and Crime No.498/2017 was registered against him for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC also. It is further submitted

that so far as the bright career of the applicant is concerned, it is clear from the documents which have been filed by the applicant that he was given

second opportunity to appear in the Class 12th examination under Rukjana Nahi Yojna, which clearly shows that the applicant must have failed in

Class 12th in his first attempt.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. coupled with the subsequent conduct of the applicant as well as

the co-accused persons as well as the fact that the applicant has tried to win over the prosecution witnesses by pressurizing them as well as

considering the allegations made against the applicant, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.