Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dileep Singh Armo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2020
Author: Mohammed Fahim Anwar
Bench: Mohammed Fahim Anwar
1 MCRC-5814-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-5814-2020
(DILEEP SINGH ARMO Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-08-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Raman Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mohd. Siddiqui, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available with the Panel Lawyer.
This is repeat third bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.3/2019, registered at Police Station Tikariya Distt. Mandla for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
Earlier first application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.3.2019 passed in M. Cr. C. No.12231/2019 and second application of the applicant was dismissed as on merits vide order dated 20.11.2019 passed in M. Cr. C. No.35287/2019.
As per the prosecution that on 5.1.2019 the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was found to be disappeared from her residential house situated at village Narayanganj under the jurisdiction of police station Tikariya Distt. Distt. Mandla. A report of her disappearance was lodged, on that basis Crime No. 3/2019 under Section 363 of IPC was registered against unknown person. It is alleged that later on the prosecutrix was recovered on 1.2.2019 and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, on that basis it was found that the prosecutrix was abducted by the applicant and also kept her for 27 days at Jabalpur and Vijaywada, where he has also committed forcefully intercourse with her. On that basis, name of the applicant was arrayed in the said crime and Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act has been added in the already registered crime.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an Signature Not Verified SAN innocent and he has not committed any offence. He has falsely been Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2020.08.28 17:02:28 IST 2 MCRC-5814-2020 implicated in the present offence. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court. It is also submitted that due to Covid-19 trial is stagnated. He is in custody since 1.3.2019. On these grounds, it is requested that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.
After dismissal of second-repeat application of the applicant on merits vide order dated 20.11.2019 passed in M. Cr. C. No.35287/2019, there is no change in the circumstance except to delay in trial due to Covid-19 and that is not a sufficient ground for grant of bail to applicant. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Consequently, this repeat-third application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(MOHD. FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2020.08.28 17:02:28 IST