Sanjay Moriya @ Nanku v. State

1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose oftwo bail applications bearing No.1797/2013 and 1799/2013 (both u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) filed by Sanjay Moriya@ Nanku and Rakesh Moriya respectively as both the 2013:DHC:6982 ' ',. applications arise out of FIR No.294/2013 u/s 376/506/34 IPC for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners have been framed in the present case and they have no role to play in the entire matter. The prosecutrix was in love with one Ravi and married him on 29th April, 2011 without the knowledge of her parents. Thereafter she had returned to her parents' home. Subsequently, the parents of the prosecutrix came to know about this marriage when police had visited their residence and informed them that the prosecutrix had sent a written information to the Police that she had married Ravi of her own free will and no action be taken against him. When this fact came to the knowledge of her parents, they asked her to leave their house and live with her husband. This false complainant has been filed by the complainant wherein she has implicated the entire family who are her relatives including her own husband Ravi Kumar and on the basis of this false complaint, police has registered the FIR. It is alleged by the complainant that she was raped by the applicant about three years back by blackmailing her of showing pictures of the complainant on a mobile phone, which were clicked by one co-accused Minakshi with the assistance of one Bimla (chachi of complainant) and, thereafter, applicants threatened her with dire consequences in case she reveals anything to anyone. She was pressurized and forced to marry co-accused Ravi Kumar which fact is belied by the fact that the complainant married Ravi Kumar of her own sweet will and also intimated the SHO. The applicant is a victim of circumstances. Co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioners are ready to join investigation, as such, they be released on bail.

3. The application is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that in the complaint as well as in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has levelled allegations regarding commission of rape upon her by the accused persons. The investigation is at initial stage. The allegations are serious in nature. The role of co-accused is entirely different from that of the petitioners. As such, petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the allegations against the accused persons are regarding commission of rape upon the complainant which are very serious in nature. The role of co-accused is different from that of the petitioner. That being so, since the allegations are grave in nature, investigation is at initial stage, as such, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to them.

5. Applications are accordingly dismissed.

6. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the OCTOBER 29, 2013 rs JlfrUJ- q11p,. SUNITA GUPTA, J