Mahesh Verma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.20/2026 registered at Police Station- Bargi district - Jabalpur for commission of offence punishable under Section 65(1), 75(1)(i) of BNS, 2023, section 3,4,7,8 of POCSO Act, section 3(1)(w)(iii), 3(2), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act, 1989. Applicant is in detention since 14.02.2026.

As per the prosecution story, on 17.01.2026, the complainant/prosecutrix visited the police station and given a written complaint alleging that she is studying 9th class and on daily basis, she take tuition from accused. She further alleged that on date of incident when with other students left the coaching classes by 9.00 am., the present applicant sexually assaulted her and after sometime he left her to home. Upon reaching the home she narrated the whole incident to her parents. F.I.R was registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the entire story, the case under section 376 of IPC is not made out. He has further submitted that the case is filed due to some vengeance of the father of the prosecutrix with the applicant, he has falsely been implicated in the offence. No such incident has taken place. All the story which is narrated is false. He has submitted that considering the statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C and under section 164 Cr.P.C, it seems that statement under section 164 is recorded prior to statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C and that also creates doubt about the story of the prosecution. He has submitted that even considering all the facts narrated in the F.I.R no offence under any provision of POCSO Act or any other provisions of BNS, 2023 is made out. Applicant is government servant in the irrigation department and is at the verge of retirement, therefore, considering the age of the applicant 58 years, it is prayed that applicant's case may be considered and he may be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the objector has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that no case for bail is made out and looking to the age of the prosecutrix, bail should not be granted to the applicant.

Counsel for the State has also submitted that the age of girl is 13 years and 11 months and looking to the allegation, prima facie offence is made out, more particularly, under the provisions of POCSO Act and also considering the fact that applicant is Time Keeper in the irrigation department and government servant aged 58 years, the alleged action of the applicant is also required to be viewed very seriously. Looking to the aspect of societal impact and the fact that offence pertains to abuse of child, therefore, bail should not be granted.

I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and also considered the material available on record. Prima facie, it transpires that age of victim is 13 years 11 months. Considering the specific allegation regarding some overt act of kissing and about bad touch with the child which prima facie clearly attracts the provisions of POCSO Act and considering the age of the applicant i.e 58 years and; considering the totality of facts and circumstances and; also considering the societal impact and increase of the cases of child abuse, I am of the view that prima facie case is made out against the applicant, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my power to grant bail. Application is dismissed.