Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-20238-2017
sh
(PAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
4
ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-12-2017
Pr
Shri Ajay Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R. S. Shukla, Government Advocate for the respondent-
a State.
hy Heard on I.A.No.21865/2017 for taking additional documents ad on record.
M For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the additional documents are taken on record.
of Heard on this second application for bail under section 439 of rt the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner ou Pan Singh in Crime No.174/2017 registered by P.S. Habibganj, District Bhopal under Sections 364A, 370, 323 and C 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the h Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act. ig His first application for the same relief was dismissed as H withdrawn by this Court by order dated 26.07.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.11731/2017. Therefore, this second application is being considered on merits. As per the prosecution case, victim Rinki is a 21 years old girl. Her foster mother Asha sold her for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to petitioner Pan Singh, who was her maternal uncle's husband (Mausa) at Gwalior. Petitioner Pan Singh tried to make her engage in flesh trade at Gwalior but she resisted. Subsequently, she was sold by petitioner Pan Singh to co-accused Parveen for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- at Nagpur. Parveen and her sister Banti forced the victim into prostitution. One Vipin rescued her from flesh trade and sh brought her to Bhopal. He married Rinki and they lived with his maternal uncle (Mausaji) Prakash Sharma and his family.
e ad On 23.03.2017, Parveen and petitioner Pan Singh accompanied by three other women and nine other men Pr reached the house of Prakash Sharma at Bhopal in two a vehicles. On seeing them, Rinki escaped from the house and hy hid behind bushes. Aforesaid persons demanded to see Rinki.
ad When Prakash Sharma's wife Savita Sharma and son Gaurav refused, they pushed Savita Sharma. As a result, she fell M down and sustained injury to her head. They kidnapped of Gaurav and took him in their vehicle; however, since they were chased by a police vehicle, they dropped Gaurav near rt the petrol pump; thereafter, the police intercepted the ou vehicles and arrested in all 14 persons including petitioner C Pan Singh.
Learned counsel for petitioner Pan Singh submits that the h ig allegations leveled by victim Rinki against petitioner Pan H Singh are false. In the past, she had deposed before the police on 20.04.2015 and 24.01.2014 in the cases related to prostitution. On 02.06.2015 she had given her statement before In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copies of those statements. In those cases, on each occasion, she has given a different story regarding her background and how she landed in flesh trade. In none of those statements has she implicated Pan Singh in any manner. In fact, name of Pan Singh does not figure at all in any of the aforesaid three statements. He further submits that name of Pan Singh does not figure in the statement of Gaurav sh either, who was alleged to have been kidnapped. The petitioner has been in custody since 23.03.2017 and charge e ad sheet in the matter has been filed. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.
Pr Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on a the other hand has opposed the bail application. He submits hy that Rinki appears to have been badly trapped in prostitution ad and on each occasion she lapsed back into the flesh trade with its own unique pressures and compulsion. Therefore, it M cannot be assumed that earlier statements made by her were of as a free agent; however, later she was rescued from flesh trade by witness Vipin, who married her and gave her a new rt identity. Therefore, she came out with her real background.
ou The statements of the witnesses from her village and also the C wife of Pan Singh revealed that Pan Singh is not a stranger to the victim; therefore, no reliance can be placed on earlier h ig statements. So far as statement of Gaurav, victim of H kidnapping is concerned, he had no occasion to see Pan Singh before; therefore, he could not have named him. The allegations leveled against Pan Singh are very serious and he is one of the main accused persons in the case. Therefore, the application for bail be dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned Government Advocate, in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to release petitioner Pan Singh on bail. Consequently, this second application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Pan Singh , is dismissed.
sh (C V SIRPURKAR) e ad JUDGE Pr a hy b Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2017.12.06 23:28:52 -08'00' ad M of rt ou C h ig H