Aayush vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime

No.755/2017 registered at Police Station Aerodrome, Indore District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) and 376

(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 5 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

The applicant is in custody since 29.10.2018.

As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix regarding abduction, inducement and commission of rape on the

pretext of marriage, the case has been registered against the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a young boy aged about 20 years and he has been falsely implicated in the

present crime. Earlier also, the prosecutrix made complaint alleging the same allegations against the applicant; on the basis of which, Crime

No.53/2017 was registered against the applicant at Police Station Aerodrome, District Indore (MP) and charge sheet was filed, which was tried as

Special Sessions Trial No.36/2017. However, in the aforesaid case, the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile.

Therefore, the present applicant was acquitted by the Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (MP) vide judgment dated 28th June, 2018.

Thereafter, again the prosecutrix had gone with the applicant on her own will and remained with him for a period of three months, during which period,

she neither raised any alarm nor made complaint to any one that the applicant took her forcefully. Therefore, it is clear that she was the consenting

party. The applicant is in custody since 29.10.2018. The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed. There is no possibility of his /

her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Under these circumstances,

learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the bail application by contending that the prosecutrix has already

been examined before the trial Court on 03.10.2018. According to her statement at the time of incident, she was minor and therefore, her consent is

immaterial and in the Court statement she has made specific allegation against the applicant regarding commission of rape. Therefore, learned Public

Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail; hence he

prayed for rejection of the application.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, so also looking to the fact that

the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7239/2020 is hereby dismissed.