Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chiku @ Pratik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.24047/2018
(Chiku @ Pratik Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dt.1.08.2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the complainant. Heard, Case-diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.572/2017 registered at Police Station Neelganga, District Ujjain for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376(D), 342 and 506 of the IPC and sec.7/8 and 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the FIR. The statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial court in which she has made allegation against the co-accused Devendra and Virendra and one juvenile, however the only allegation against the applicant is that he caught hold the prosecutirx and no allegation of rape is alleged against the applicant. The applicant is under custody since 22.9.2017 and conclusion of trial is likely to take time. In these circumstances, prayer is made to release the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant opposes the bail application with the contention that prosecutrix is a minor girl. In her examination-in-chief recorded before the trial court, the prosecutrix has categorically made allegation against the applicant, co-accused Lokendra, Devendra and one juvenile who committed rape with her. It is a case of gang rape, therefore no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail. Hence prays for rejection of the bail application.
From perusal of the record, it transpires that applicant was also HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.24047/2018 (Chiku @ Pratik Vs. State of M.P.) present at the time of incident and he also assaulted over the prosecutrix with an intent to outrage her modesty. During test identification parade, the prosecutrix has duly identified the present applicant as culprit. Although learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention of this court towards cross-examination of the prosecutrix and submitted that there are discrepancies and omissions in her statement, which clearly indicates the false implication of the applicant, however at this stage the Court cannot appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix whereby she has made allegation against the applicant and co-accused regarding gang rape, therefore the applicant is not entitled for bail.
In view of aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. stands
dismissed.
(S.K.Awasthi)
Judge
mk
Digitally signed
by MUKTA
KAUSHAL
Date: 2018.08.02
14:54:22 +05'30'