Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karnel Singh @ Adesh Baba vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE
1
M.Cr.C. No.44355/2018
(Karnel Singh @ Adesh Baba vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated: 12/11/2018
Shri R.S. Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case-diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 534/2018, registered at Police Station- Lasudia, District-Indore, for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(d), 506, 384 and 109/34 of the IPC.
As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix filed a written complaint to police on 23/06/2018, alleging that she was not keeping well so her husband's friend took her and her husband to applicant. Upon visiting him, the illness of prosecutrix was cured. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and her husband gained trust in applicant and they started visiting the applicant repeatedly. It is alleged that later on, one day when the prosecutrix was having headache, she visited the applicant and the applicant gave her a black colored tablet, which she consumed and applicant performed some worship, due to which she started feeling dizzy. It is also alleged that the applicant touched the prosecutrix, when she objected to it, applicant's son-Chutkinath came and said she has to do same as applicant says otherwise the evil king will be annoyed and she will be vanished. It is further alleged that during her unconsciousness state, she was raped and she was physically abused for the past 2 to 3 years since 2015 on the pretext of threatening to kill her family. Because of fear prosecutrix was made to give her gold ornaments to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecutrix is aged about 53 years old and matured lady, having her THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 2 M.Cr.C. No.44355/2018 (Karnel Singh @ Adesh Baba vs. State of M.P.) own family including husband and children. The alleged incident has taken place during the year 2015 to 2017, however, the prosecutrix never complaint to such offence to anyone. There is unexplained inordinate delay of about 16 months in the lodging of FIR from the last date of alleged commission of offence. The prosecutrix started blackmailing the applicant and demanded gold jwellery and money from the applicant, as is evident from the recording of the telephone call talk between the applicant and the prosecutrix. Such recording has not been seized by the police intentionally. The applicant has filed the CD of the aforesaid recording and its transcript alongwith certificate of Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the applicant is an old man aged about 65 years and he is suffering from various old aged ailments and if he is further detained then his health condition will be deteriorated adversely. The applicant is in jail since 24/06/2018. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgments of Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 791 and K.P. Thimmappa Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2011) 14 SCC 475.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by contending that in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is specifically alleged that the applicant several times committed rape with the her and his son made video of the incident and on the basis of this, he regularly blackmailing the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the documents filed by the applicant alongwith the present bail application belongs to his defence, therefore, same cannot be considered at this stage. The act of the applicant is serious in nature and if he is granted bail, certainly, he shall THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 3 M.Cr.C. No.44355/2018 (Karnel Singh @ Adesh Baba vs. State of M.P.) influence the prosecution witnesses. The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable at the stage of considering the bail application. Under these circumstances, he prayed for rejection of the application.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that at this stage no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, this application is hereby dismissed.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar
Tiwari
Date: 2018.11.14 11:26:42 +05'30'