Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meena Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 August, 2017
CRA-3068-2017
(MEENA VISHWAKARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
31-08-2017
Shri B.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.N. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
Shri P.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant.
Heard.
This criminal appeal has been filed for grant of bail on behalf of the appellant under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appellant is in custody since 19.06.2017, in connection with Crime No.17/2017, registered at Police Station Pathrouta, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3(2)(5) and 3(1)(wi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 363, 366, 376 and 344 of the IPC.
As per prosecution, co-accused Deepak took prosecutrix from her guardianship to Mandideep and then at Bhopal. He committed rape upon the prosecutrix at Bhopal and then other co-accused Aleem and Sharukh met them. Thereafter, they took her to the house of appellant Meena where co-accused Aleem and Sharukh also committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is also alleged that the appellant wrongfully confined the prosecutrix in her house and tried to marry her at other place, then after getting chance on 06.04.2017 the prosecutrix fled away from there and came to her home. It is also alleged that before the incident, one co-accused Javed had also committed rape upon her. Thereafter, on her report, case was lodged.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in this case. As per statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 07.04.2017 and her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 08.04.2017, she has not stated that she was wrongfully confined by the appellant. Thereafter, on 13.04.2017 again in her statement recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., she has stated that she had been wrongfully confined by the appellant. He further submits that the appellant is a lady. There is no criminal antecedents of the appellant. There is no allegation that she had cooperated in committing the aforesaid offence. Learned counsel further stated that other co-accused and prosecutrix had taken a room on rent from appellant. The charge sheet has been filed and the trial will take long time to conclude. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the appellant.
Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer of the respondent-state as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the objector objects the bail application.
After hearing arguments of the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, allegation made against the appellant and that she is a lady, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, appeal of the present appellant, namely, Meena Vishwakarma under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE sp