Indrasen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2022

[Cites 10, Cited by 3]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Indrasen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2022

Bench: Vishal Mishra

                                                                           1
                                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                                       BEFORE
                                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                                    ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2022

                                                     MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21908 of 2022

                                              Between:-
                                              INDRASEN S/O MUNEJAR, AGED ABOUT 27
                                              YEAR S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O GRAM
                                              RAIGHAD POST JAGRIYA DISTRICT GONDA U.P.
                                              (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                                                                      .....APPLICANT
                                              (BY SHRI ANURAG SAHU- ADVOCATE)

                                              AND

                                     1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                              POLICE STATION NARMADA NAGAR DISTRICT
                                              KHANDWA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     2.       VICTIM X S/O NOT MENTION THROUGH
                                              POLICE STATION NARMADA NAGAR DISTRICT-
                                              KHANDWA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                              (BY SHRI B.S.KUSHWAHA- PANEL LAWYER)

                                           This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                     following:
                                                                            ORDER

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

T h e applicant has been arrested on 14.03.2022 by Police Station Narmada Nagar, District Khandwa (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.58/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(N) and 109 of IPC Signature Not Verified SAN and Section 5L/6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vA) of the Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2022.05.18 10:58:39 IST SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act.

It is pointed out that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is submitted that the victim as well as the applicant were in love relations, therefore, they have solemnized marriage and the child has been begotten out of the physical relations made between the applicant as well as the victim. It is submitted that the victim as well as the applicant both wants to live together and it is not a case of forceful sexual intercourse. It is only as a result of love and affair between the victim as well as the applicant. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in the case of Hanumantha Mogaveera Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2021 KAR 3469 and has argued that no case of forceful sexual intercourse is made out against the present applicant. Even the male child has been born, who is aged about three months. Applicant is not running away from his responsibilities and submits that he is ready to keep the victim as his wife and will take care of the child. As charge sheet has been filed in the matter, there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant in the matter. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court, while considering his application for grant of bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the application stating that the age of the victim is below 17 years and she has stated regarding commission of crime by the present applicant. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. she has stated that despite refusal Signature Not Verified the applicant has committed intercourse with her which goes to show that SAN Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE forceful intercourse have been done. Filing of charge-sheet is not disputed by Date: 2022.05.18 10:58:39 IST the State counsel. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

although the victim has categorically stated regarding making of physical relations with the present applicant out of her own consent, but consent of a minor is having no value. He has further relied upon the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.11936/2022 dated 22.03.2022 whereby, the basic object of the POCSO Act as well as the age of a child has been taken into consideration and it was held that any person below the age of 18 years will be considered as a child and there is no value of consent of a minor. The POCSO Act is a special enactment, therefore, the provisions to be strictly construed and no leniency should be given in such cases. In such circumstances, he has prayed for rejection of the application.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the victim is a minor, aged about 17 years of age, this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow this application.

Application is hereby rejected.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Sha Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2022.05.18 10:58:39 IST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court