Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5639 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
YOGESH S/O MOHAN JI PRAJAPAT, AGED ABOUT 25
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O KUMHAR
MOHALLA NEAR RADHA KRISHNA TEMPLE TALWAD
DEB TEHSIL ANJAD DISTT. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
ANJAD DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PROSECUTRIX X THROUGH SHO POLICE STATION
ANJAD DIST BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....NON-APPLICANTS
(SHRI PRASHANT JAIN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
(SHRI NILESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
This application coming on for order this day, th e Court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is second application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant/accused, relating to FIR/Crime No.675/2023 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station - Anjad, District Barwani (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 450, Signature Not Verified 354, 354-D and 506 of IPC alongwith 7/8, 5(l)/6 and 3/4 of the Protection of Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 17-02-2024 18:40:37 2 Children from Sexual Offences Act.
2. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.12.2023 passed by this Court in MCRC No.51724/2023.
3 . Prosecution story, in brief, is that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was minor, aged below 14 years. On 19.03.2021, at around 4.00 PM, when the prosecutrix was alone at her home, applicant/accused entered into her house and closed the door from inside. Applicant caught hold the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he threatened her that if she tell about the incident to anyone, then he will kill her family members. Being afraid, prosecutrix did not tell about the incident to her parents. Thereafter, applicant had also repeated the same act for 2-3 times. On 24.10.2023, at around 7.00 PM, when the prosecutrix was going to watch Ravan Dahan, on the way, applicant caught hold her hand but the prosecutrix rescued herself and ran to her house thereafter, she narrated the incident to her parents and matter was reported on 28.10.2023.
4 . Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant has not committed the offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that it is not prima-facie proved that prosecutrix was below 14 years of age. In Samagra ID and Aadhar Card, date of birth of prosecutrix is different, as mentioned in the scholar register. There is also contraction in the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother (PW-6) in respect of age of prosecutrix. Statement of In-charge Head Master (PW-3) also creates a doubt in respect of date of birth therefore, age of prosecutrix has not been proved by the prosecution and date of birth as mentioned in the scholar register is not reliable. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 17-02-2024 18:40:37 3 in the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) therefore, her statement is also not unreliable. It is further submitted that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was a major lady and she was a consenting party for sexual intercourse therefore, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. Applicant is in custody since 28.10.2023. Till now only 06 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court. Trial will take considerable long time for its disposal, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State as well as counsel for the objector have opposed the prayer and submit that Samagra ID and Aadhard Card are not considerable factor to determine the age of prosecutrix. For this purpose, only scholar register has to be considered. There are no material contradictions or omissions in the statement of prosecutrix. From perusal of the scholar register, it is prima-facie clear that prosecutrix was below 14 years of age therefore, her consent is immaterial. It is also submitted by counsel for the objector that 08 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court therefore, trial of the case will not take long time for its disposal hence, applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after perusal of the case- diary so also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. Resultantly, this repeat application for bail is dismissed.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE gp Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 17-02-2024 18:40:37