Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vinod Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2020

Author: Mohammed Fahim Anwar

Bench: Mohammed Fahim Anwar

                                                        1                              MCRC-51486-2019
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                        MCRC-51486-2019
                                        (VINOD YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 22-07-2020
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.

                            Shri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
                            Ms. Nalini Gurang, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

None for objector.

Case is available with the Panel Lawyer.

This is second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.63/2019 registered by P.S. Jiyavan, District Singrauli (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(n)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the case of the prosecution, on 14/02/2019 at about 7.00 pm, prosecutrix aged about 19 years was kidnapped by the applicant Vinod Yadav from her residential house situated at village Jaghat under the jurisdiction of police station Jiyavan District Singrauli. He had taken her to Sidhi on motorcycle from there to Lillore (A.P.), kept her in captivity and committed forceful intercourse with her. Later on, she had been taken to Rakhoti (Gujrat) and also kept her in a rented room for a period of four months and committed forceful intercourse. It is also alleged that on 14/02/2019 applicant has left the prosecutrix at Bus Stand, Sidhi and fled from there. Prosecutrix reached at her home and narrated the incidence to her family members, on that basis, missing report which was already registered has been converted into FIR registered under Crime No.63/2019 for the offence under Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(n)/34 of the IPC. Medical Examination of the prosecutrix was conducted and statements under Section 161 & 164 have been recorded.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any crime and has falsely been implicated in the case. He is a Signature Not SAN Verified permanent resident of the address shown in the application and there is no Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 2020.07.22 17:14:43 IST 2 MCRC-51486-2019 possibility to his for absconding and tampering with the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 15/02/2019. It is also submitted that the the charge has been framed on 15.11.2019 against the applicant and till now neither prosecutrix nor any witness has been examined before the trial Court. Looking to the inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed a reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Rambahor Saket Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2019 JLJ

522. In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the Stated opposes the prayer of the applicant and prays for dismissal of the application.

From perusal of the record, it seems that the allegation of kidnapping the prosecutrix is against the applicant. He kept her in a rented room for a period of four months and committed forceful intercourse with her. The charge has been framed on 15.11.2019 and afterward looking to the outbreak of Corona Virus (Covid-19) lock down has been imposed by the Govt. of India, therefore, there was no chance of examination of prosecutrix or any important witness, hence the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant inordinate delay in court proceeding is of no substance. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable on facts; hence, it is not applicable in the present case. After dismissal of the first bail application, I do not find any change in the circumstances.

Consequently, the second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.


                                                                        (MOHD. FAHIM ANWAR)
                                                                                JUDGE

Signature
 SAN      Not         SKM
Verified

Digitally signed by
SANTOSH MASSEY
Date: 2020.07.22
17:14:43 IST
                       3   MCRC-51486-2019




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
SANTOSH MASSEY
Date: 2020.07.22
17:14:43 IST