Madhya Pradesh High Court
Supendra Kumar Saket @Sukendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 2nd OF AUGUST, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27147 of 2022
Between:-
SUPENDRA KUMAR SAKET @SUKENDRA S/O
SHRI.RAM BALI SAKET, AGED ABOUT 20
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
GANNAI P.S. SARAI DISTT. SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION SARAI DISTT. SINGRAULI
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM X D/O NOT KNOWN NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE AND SHRI NAGENDRA SINGH
SOLANKI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
On 25.7.2022, when this case was listed, then learned counsel for the objector submitted that the prosecutrix and her mother were threatened to change their statements before the trial Court. She had sought time to undertake prosecution of the present applicant. However, when case is listed today, it is Signature Not Verified SAN submitted that no complaint was made soon after 19.05.2022, when statements Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.02 19:01:39 IST of prosecutrix and her mother were recorded before the trial Court.
2A complaint was lodged with the Station House Officer, Police Station Sarai, District Singrauli on 27.7.2022. Another complaint was made with the Superintendent of Police Singrauli on 28.07.2022 that in March 2022, prosecutrix had suffered miscarriage and had informed the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, but Station House Officer had not taken any action.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, in his turn, submits that a case under Section 313 and 201 of Indian Penal Code is already registered against the parents of the prosecutrix on 14.7.2022. It is submitted that prosecutrix is cooking different stories so as to save her own position and also to save her parents who are responsible for not cooperating with the Investigating Officer and giving intimation about miscarriage in time.
It is submitted that if Station House Officer had not taken any action when intimation was allegedly given in regard to miscarriage in March 2022, then prosecutrix was duty bound to have informed this fact to the superior police officers immediately thereafter.
Similarly, if prosecutrix was abducted along with her mother for recording false statements before the trial Court, then this fact should have been brought to the notice of the trial Court at least when prosecutrix was before the trial Court, so that trial Court could have taken preventive measures. Now prosecutrix with a view to blackmail the applicant is changing her stand and is trying to cook new stories every day.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the Signature Not Verified record, there appears to be no justification in a complaint lodged after more SAN Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI than two months of so-called abduction of the prosecutrix and her mother on Date: 2022.08.02 19:01:39 IST 19.05.2022. There is no reason for not reporting this matter to the concerned 3 authorities till 27.07.2022. There is no reason given by learned counsel for the objector to not to report this fact of being abducted and forced to lead false statements before the trial Court where the prosecutrix and her mother appeared on 19.05.2022. Similarly, there is no justification for not reporting the matter about non-cooperation in the hands of the concerned Station House Officer when prosecutrix had undergone miscarriage in the month of March 2022.
Thus, I am in agreement with Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Panel Lawyer, that prosecutrix is trying to change her stand with a view to protect her parents against whom the case has been registered under Sections 313 and 201 IPC and and Sections 5 and 6 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
As far as merits of the case are concerned, in the ocular evidence led by prosecutrix and her mother, they have given clean chit to the present applicant. This Court as well as the trial Court could have taken note of forensic evidence, but that too has been distorted by the prosecutrix.
It is admitted by Shri Tamrakar, that vaginal slides which were prepared from the prosecutrix when she was taken for MLC, no sperms were found either on the slides or on the cloths of the prosecutrix. Thus, when prosecutrix has herself deposed in favour of the applicant and is responsible for distortion and disappearance of scientific evidence, applicant cannot be allowed to languish in jail, merely because prosecutrix has chosen a convenient path of changing her stand after inordinate delay.
This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody since Signature Not Verified SAN 25.02.2022 in connection with Crime No.965/2021 registered at Police Station Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.02 19:01:39 IST Sarai, District Singrauli (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 4 366 (A), 344, 376 (3), 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is in custody since 25.02.2022. Investigation is complete, charge sheet is filed. Investigation is complete and trial will take time for its conclusion, therefore, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.
Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that investigation is complete, charge sheet is filed, applicant has family to support and he is youth of 20 years, trial will take time for its conclusion, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this bail application is allowed.
It is directed that applicant-Surendra Kumar Saket @ Sukendra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to appear before the said Court on the dates given by the concerned Court during pendency of trial. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective.
I n view of the outbreak of new mutant Omicron of Covid-19, the jail Signature Not Verified SAN authorities and the State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.02 19:01:39 IST by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus before and after 5 releasing the applicant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.02 19:01:39 IST