Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 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 26 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 540 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DILIP S/O SHIVNARAYAN CHANDRAWANSHI, AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR GRAM
RALYAKHEDI TEHSIL NAGDA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI JAGDISH CHAND DANGI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER PS NAGDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM X THROUGH P.S. NAGDA DISTRICT
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIRAJ GODHA - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
2. 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.345/2023 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 344, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 5L/ of POCSO Act.
3. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 27/02/2024 5:56:41 PM 2 order dated 23.11.2023 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.43068/2023.
4 . Prosecution story, in brief is that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was around 16 years and 10 months of age. Prior to the incident, the prosecutrix and applicant were known to each other. The applicant used to tell that he likes and wanted to marry her but the prosecutrix had denied. On 03.06.2023, the present applicant Dilip and co-accused Pankaj Jaiswal took the prosecutrix from her home by car. Co-accused Pankaj Jaiswal left the prosecutrix and present applicant Dilip at Dewas Gate. Thereafter, the present applicant took the prosecutrix to Ahmedabad by train and kept her in a rented room for around one month. Meanwhile, he committed rape upon her several times. Thereafter the applicant took the prosecutrix to village Indorma and again kept her in a rented room and committed rape upon her. Meanwhile, on 29.07.2023, the Police had recovered the prosecutrix from the possession of the present applicant.
5 . 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 submitted that after the dismissal of first bail application of the applicant on 23.11.2023 the prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court though she supported the case of prosecution in her deposition but there are material contradictions and ommissions in her statement. Therefore, her statement is not reliable. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix lived with the applicant for long time but she had not raised any objection or complaint to any person, therefore, it is clear that the prosecutrix was a consenting party for sexual intercourse. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix had voluntarily left her home and went with the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 29.07.2023. Conclusion of trial will take considerable long time for its disposal, therefore, it is prayed that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 27/02/2024 5:56:41 PM 3 the applicant be released on bail.
6 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State has opposed the prayer and submitted that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was minor, aged below 17 years, therefore, her consent is immaterial. It is also submitted that there is no material contradiction and ommission in the statement of the prosecutrix. She has fully supported the case of prosecution. Offense is serious in nature, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. 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 this application deserves to be rejected.
8. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 27/02/2024 5:56:41 PM