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 5]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Lakhan Kori vs State Of Mp on 25 August, 2020

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

                            1
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          MCRC.No.25264/2020
                  (Lakhan Kori Vs. The State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 25.08.2020

      Smt. Uma Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State.

      Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.

      In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to

outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the

advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been

heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social

distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel

through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/

physical distancing in letter and spirit.

      Heard on I.A.No.12317/2020, application under Section 301 (2) of

Cr.P.C. for permission to assist the Public Prosecutor in the matter.

      For the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid application,

I.A.No.12317/2020 is allowed and Shri Rajeev Shrivastava is permitted

to assist the Public Prosecutor in the matter.

      Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

      The applicant has filed this second application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for

grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 12.06.2020 by Police

Station Girjora, District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime

No.28/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 376-D

and 506 of IPC.
                            2
              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         MCRC.No.25264/2020
                 (Lakhan Kori Vs. The State of M.P.)

      It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the first bail

application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated

07.07.2020

passed in M.Cr.C.No.20520/2020. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is a case of consent. The prosecutrix is a married lady of 33 years of age (as age mentioned in affidavit 27 years) and was having some relations with present applicant. On the day of incident when the matter was came to the knowledge of family members of the prosecutrix then the report was being lodged under the pressure of the family members of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the veracity of the complaint can be judged from the facts that the complaint has been made against co-accused Karu Baghel who was not at the place of incident rather he was at Indore since from 5 th April, 2020 and due to lockdown he was at Indore. It is argued that as soon as the factum of lodging a complaint was informed to him he has immediately got lodged a complaint to Police Station Azad Nagar, District Indore on 16.04.2020 itself and thereafter when he came back to Gwalior, he has again informed the Superintendent of Police on 29.06.2020 with respect to false F.I.R. against him and has asked him to investigate the matter. It is submitted that the story appears to be unnatural as the offence has been committed as stated to be committed in the night at 1 o'clock on 16.04.2020 and it is not expected that the doors of house will be open at 1 o'clock in the night. It is submitted that the 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.25264/2020 (Lakhan Kori Vs. The State of M.P.) investigation is over in the matter and the charge-sheet has been filed. There is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the complainant herself has given an affidavit on 05.08.2020 to the effect that the incident has taken place with her consent and other co-accused Karu Baghel was not even available on the spot. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this court while considering the application for grant of bail and he has shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.10000/- each towards the PM Care Fund. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. Counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Per contra, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State has opposed the bail application stating that it is a case of gang rape and there is no value of consent in the cases registered under Section 376-D of IPC. It is submitted that specific allegations are being lebelled against the accused persons in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, thereafter under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.. Mere filing of an affidavit on a subsequent stage is of no value. It is submitted that the daughter of the prosecutrix is witness of the incident and she in her statement has categorically deposed against the present applicant regarding commission of offence. As far as the complaint made to Police 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.25264/2020 (Lakhan Kori Vs. The State of M.P.) Station Azad Nagar, District Indore is concerned, the incident is taken place on 16.04.2020 in the night at 1 o'clock and the report at Police Station Azad Nagar, District Indore has been lodged on 16.04.2020 itself but at this stage the same is of no value to the applicant owing to a simple reason that the possibility of the co-accused Karu Baghel going to Indore lodging the report after incident cannot be ruled out. There is no time mentioned in the application submitted by the co-accused Karu Baghel at Azad Nagar, District Indore. It is submitted that there is an ample evidence against the applicant in commission of offence. In such circumstances, he has prayed for rejection of the application.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and statement of the child witness Neelam wherein she has categorically deposed the incident, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail coupled with the fact that in case of gang rape the consent is having no value. Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected.

E-copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.


                                                          (Vishal Mishra)
AK/-                                                          Judge
       ANAND KUMAR
       2020.08.28
       16:45:23 +05'30'