Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 20 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37383 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAM PRASAD S/O SHRI SAABU LAL, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE DOKYA
P.S. JHALLAR DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
JHALLAR DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM A
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRASANJEET CHATARJEE - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of bail relating to FIR/Crime No. 249/2022 dated 07.06.2022 registered at Police Station- Jhallar District- Betul for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(3), 376(2)(n), 344 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5L/6 & 16 read with Section 17 of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 9/21/2023 3:49:41 PM 2 judicial custody since 10.06.2022. The applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. Investigation in the matter i s complete and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant bears no criminal record. He further submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate in trial as well as investigation and would make himself available as and when required. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. Upon these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary.
I n this case, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as 12.11.2006 in scholar register. Accordingly, at the time of commission of crime she was less than 16 years. The bail application has been argued on the ground that in the statements recorded before the trial court, the prosecutrix (PW/1) and her mother (PW/3) were declared hostile. Statements of both these witnesses suggest that the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the applicant. The detailed analysis of evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage, but looking to the age of prosecutrix at the time of incident as also the fact that she was recovered from the house of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, this first bail application is rejected.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 9/21/2023 3:49:41 PM 3(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 9/21/2023 3:49:41 PM