Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal Jhala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55545 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
VISHAL JHALA S/O INDAR SINGH JHALA, AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O SHAKKARVASA
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION LASUDIYA
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SEEMA MAHESHWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
01. This is the second application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. First application bearing M.Cr.C. No.51451 of 2022 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.11.2022. The applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.1473/2022 registered at Police Station Lasudiya, District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 506 of the IPC. The applicant is in custody since 15.09.2022.
02 . As per the prosecution, on 24.09.2022 a report was lodged by the prosecutrix to the effect that she had known the applicant for about two years Signature Not Verified and had come in connect with him through Instagram. They had become friends Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-Dec-22 11:09:27 AM 2 and on 28.07.2022 the applicant had called her to Meghdoot Gardan where they met for the first time. He again called her to meet him on 20.07.2022 but she could not come. On the next day, the prosecutrix went to meet the applicant in a hotel near Bombay Hospital and he called her to the room saying that he is not well. She went to the room and after some time wanted to go back but the applicant did not permit her to leave and instead committed rape upon her on 3- 4 occasions. She tried to scream but he covered her mouth. He also beat her repeatedly and also threatened her. On the report lodged by the prosecutrix, the applicant has been implicated and arrested for the present offence.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The entire incident as narrated by the prosecutrix is wholly improbable. The applicant is aged about 22 years whereas the prosecutrix is aged about 27 years hence it is not possible to contemplate that the incident as alleged might have taken place. The medical report of the prosecutrix also does not support the prosecution case as in that it has been found that the prosecutrix is habitual to sexual intercourse. It is further submitted that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and further custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required who is in custody since 15.09.2022 and the trial is likely to take a long time for its conclusion. On such grounds prayer for grant of bail to the applicant has been made.
04. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
05. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-Dec-22 11:09:27 AM 3 case diary.
06. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. as well as in the version of the incident given by her to the doctor who conducted her medical examination has narrated in detail the incident as had taken place with her. From a perusal of all the statements, for the present, they cannot be said to be false or made up or unbelievable in any manner. The argument that the applicant is younger to the prosecutrix hence the incident as alleged could not have taken place is beyond comprehension. Merely for the reason that in the medical examination of the prosecutrix no injury was found upon her, the entire version of the prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved. The charge sheet in the matter had already been filed prior to hearing and withdrawal of the previous application hence the fact of filing of the charge sheet also does not benefit the applicant in any manner.
07. Thus looking to the seriousness of the offence and the allegation levelled against the applicant, I do not deem it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The application being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-Dec-22 11:09:27 AM