High CourtsSingle Bench

Arun vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 6 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 MP CK 0042

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nandita Dubey, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(3), 376 (2)N, 450, 506 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4, 5(L), 6
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.36730 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 402 words

Nandita Dubey, J

The applicant has filed this repeat (third) bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Earlier two bail applications have been

dismissed as withdrawn on 04.08.2020 and 09.06.2021 respectively.

The applicant is in custody since 21.02.2020 in connection with Crime No. 36/2020 registered at Police Station Tamiyan, District Chhindwara M.P.)

for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376 (3), 376 (2) N, 506 of IPC and 3, 4, 5 (L) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

The allegation against the present applicant is that he entered the house of the minor prosecutrix at night and committed rape on her.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The prosecutrix in her Court's deposition has not supported

the prosecution story and has turned hostile.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has pointed out the 164 statement and MLC report of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the

prosecutrix was only 14 years of age at the time of incident and she has made categorical statement against the present applicant and prays for

rejection of this application.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, case diary as well as deposition of the prosecutrix given before the Court.

The prosecutrix has turned hostile before the trial Court. However, she has stated that she has given the 164 statement before the Court of Junnardev

and whatever she has stated has been recorded. She has further stated that the statement has been given by her own and she has not been taught by

any Police Officer.

Admittedly, the prosecutrix was only 14 years of age at the time of incident and she has made allegation against the present applicant in her 164

statement before the Court, which she has not been denied in her deposition. Though on other aspect she has turned hostile but looking to the age of

the prosecutrix and her admission regarding her 164 statement, no ground for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

A typed copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry to the Office of the Advocate General and to the concerned learned counsel for the State, o

n their respective email addresses for intimation to the Police Station concerned. The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the learned

Court below also.

Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.