High CourtsSingle Bench

Dalveer Kushwah vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 MP CK 0044

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S. Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 366(a), 376, 376(2)(I) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.39237 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

16 paragraphs · 311 words

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

This second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated

19.1.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2295/2021.

The applicant has been arrested on 29.5.2020 in connection with Crime No.306/2020 registered at Police Station Joura, District Morena for offence

under Sections 363, 376, 376(2)(I), 366, 366(a) of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix who is minor aged about 15 to 16 years went missing on 24.4.2020 and was

recovered on 11.5.2020. In her first statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. she did not allege anything against the applicant and on the

contrary it was alleged that because of misbehavior of her parents, she went to the house of her Mausi and her Mausi did not inform her parents about

the arrival of the prosecutrix. Similarly her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded and in the said statement she also narrated the

same story. However, in the supplementary statement, she stated that she had stayed in the house of the applicant where she was raped by the

applicant. It is submitted that when there are multiple statements of the prosecutrix, then one favouring the accused has to be read.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that from the MLC report of the prosecutrix

it is clear that her hymen was old torn and the prosecutrix was recovered after 18 to 19 days from the date she went missing, therefore, it is clear that

the subsequent statement of the applicant finds corroboration from the medical report.

At this stage the counsel for the applicant seeks permission of the Court to withdraw this application.

The application is dismissed as withdrawn.