Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokendra Panwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.26892/2018
1
Indore, Dt.1.08.2018
Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the complainant. Heard, Case-diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.572/2017 registered at Police Station Neelganga, District Ujjain for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376(D), 342 and 506 of the IPC and section 7/8, 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is falsely implicated in the present crime. The statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial court and looking to her statement it appears that she went with the applicant out of her own will and visited different places, therefore she was the consenting party. The applicant is under custody since 30.10.2017 and conclusion of trial is likely to take time. In these circumstances, prayer is made to release the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant opposes the bail application with the contention that prosecutrix is a minor girl. In her examination-in-chief recorded before the trial court, the prosecutrix has categorically made allegation against the applicant regarding commission of rape and co-accused Devendra and one juvenile were also present there and they also committed rape with her. It is a case of gang rape, therefore no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail. Hence prays for rejection of the bail application.
From perusal of the record, it transpires that during test HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26892/2018 2 identification parade, the prosecutrix has duly identified the present applicant as culprit. Although learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention of this court towards cross-examination of the prosecutrix and submitted that there are discrepancies and omissions in her statement, which clearly indicates the false implication of the applicant, however at this stage the Court cannot appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix whereby she has made allegation against the applicant and co-accused regarding gang rape, therefore the applicant is not entitled for bail.
In view of aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. stands
dismissed.
(S.K.Awasthi)
Judge
mk
Digitally signed by
MUKTA KAUSHAL
Date: 2018.08.02
14:56:25 +05'30'