Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Parte vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-303-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-303-2020
(RAJU PARTE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
13
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-09-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Nitesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri B.S. Kushwaha, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Notice has been served to the respondent No.2.
This is third Criminal Appeal filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Earlier two criminal appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide orders dated 13.11.2018 and 19.12.2018.
The appellant is in custody since 12.9.2018 in connection with Crime No.463/2018, registered at Police Station Rampaili, District Balaghat (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 376(D), 366, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3(2)(5) & 3(1)(w-1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
As per prosecution, on 11.09.2018 at about 10:30 am when prosecutrix was waiting for bus, appellant came there and stated the prosecutrix to sit on his motorcycle. Thereafter, prosecutrix sat on the motorcycle of appellant. He took the prosecutrix in the forest, upon her shriek, appellant has put the cloth in her mouth and he called the other co-accused persons, thereafter other co- accused persons came there and committed forcefully intercourse with her. Thereafter, on the report of the prosecutrix, a case has been registered against the present appellant and other co-accused persons.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused/ appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any act with prosecutrix, but due to personal enmity, prosecutrix has made false complaint against him. The prosecution story is fabricated and concocted. Prosecutrix has been examined by Medical Officer, but no injury is found on any part of her body. Apart from this, statement of prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial Court in which she admitted that other co-
2 CRA-303-2020 accused Heeralal was not present on the spot and he did not commit any offence with her, so prosecutrix is not reliable witness. So many witnesses have been examined in the trial Court, but they did not support the case of prosecution. Accused/appellant is in jail since 12.9.2018. Co-accused Heeralal and Sewakram have been granted bail by this Court in Cr.A.No.6665/2019 by order dated 16.10.2019 and Cr.A. No. 585/2020 by order dated 17.07.2020 respectively, there is no previous criminal antecedent against the appellant. Due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, further proceeding of trial Court is withheld, therefore, trial will take long time for final disposal. There is no probability of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence by the accused/appellant. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the appellant.
Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State submits that appellant committed intercourse with the prosecutrix, so there is no ground to enlarge him on bail, therefore, he opposes the bail application.
Considering the contention of both the parties and the fact that prosecutrix is aged 35 years old lady, during investigation, she is examined by the doctor, but no injury is found on her body, co-accused Heeralal and Sewakram have already been released on bail by this Court in Cr.A.No.6665/2019 by order dated 16.10.2019 and Cr.A. No. 585/2020 by order dated 17.07.2020 respectively, appellant is in jail since 12.9.2018, there is no criminal antecedent against the appellant, it is the time of COVID-19, so the proceedings of trial is withheld and the conclusion of trial will take time for its final disposal, there is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, but without commenting on merits of the case, the appeal of the appellant under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that appellant-Raju Parte be released on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with 3 CRA-303-2020 one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-
19)' the appellant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing.
Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P. No.01/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-
1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the appellant by the jail doctor before his release.
2 . The appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
3. If it is found that the appellant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2020.09.11 17:36:19 +05'30'