Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Maheshwari Alias Chintoo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2019
Author: Mohammed Fahim Anwar
Bench: Mohammed Fahim Anwar
1 MCRC-31763-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-31763-2019
(ANKIT MAHESHWARI ALIAS CHINTOO Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-08-2019
Shri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the objector. Heard.
Case diary perused.
This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.291/2018 registered at Police Station Tilajamalpura for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 365, 376(3), 376 (D.A.), 370 (4), 34, 120-B of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.
As per the prosecution story that the prosecutrix aged about 15 years was found to be missing from her residential house situated at Teelajamalpura since 7.00 pm of 17.12.2018. Report of her disappearance was lodged by her mother after 2 days of the incident i.e. 19.12.2018. On that basis Crime No.291/18 under Section 363 of IPC was registered against unknown person. It is alleged that later on 19.1.2019 prosecutrix was found by her mother Rubina in Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal and she narrated the incident to her mother then Rubina had taken her to the Police Station, Teelajamalpura. FIR of the incident was lodged and her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Statement of her mother was also recorded and thereafter medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. Again statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 21.1.2019. The prosecutrix has stated that applicant Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 30/08/2019 22:49:44 2 MCRC-31763-2019 Ankit Maheshwari has also committed sexual intercourse with her. She has also identified him during the course of test identification parade. On that basis offence under sections 366, 366-A, 365, 376(3), 376 (D.A.), 370 (4), 34, 120-B of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act have been added to the already registered crime and applicant and co-accused persons have been arrayed as the persons who have abducted and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the present offence. On the false report and statement of the prosecutrix, the case has been registered against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 25.2.2019 and the trial will take time for its final disposal. It is further submitted that the statements of prosecutrix (PW1) and her mother Rubina (PW2) have been recorded before the trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in regard to the applicant. It is also argued that on 27.5.2019 during the course of cross-examination in Para-26 she has specifically admitted that the person to whom she is addressing Ankit Maheshwari is not there in the assembly of the accused persons, in accused-box. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.
Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 30/08/2019 22:49:443 MCRC-31763-2019 On going through the statement of prosecutrix, it appears that on 14.5.2019 when her court statement was recorded, she has specifically identified the applicant and narrated his involvement in the crime specifically. As far as argument on behalf of the applicant regarding non-identifying the applicant by the prosecutrix during her cross-examination is concerned; it is taken place on 27.5.2019 and prosecutrix in Para-26 has admitted that applicant is not present there with the other co-accused persons. The applicant has not filed the order sheet of the said date to show that on that day too, applicant was present in accused box with other co-accused persons.
In my considered opinion this fact has no meaning because at this stage the trial is going on and many witnesses are yet to be examined. In my opinion it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, this application is dismissed.
(MOHD. FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE SKM Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 30/08/2019 22:49:44