Ramesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.255/2017, registered at Police Station-

Mohan Badodiya, District-Shajapur, for commission of the offences under Sections 376(d), 323 and 506/34 of the IPC.

As per prosecution story, it is alleged that applicant alongwith other accused persons namely Ramsingh and Ramchander abducted the prosecutrix and

thereafter, accused-Ramsingh committed rape upon her in the presence of present applicant and Ramchander.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime, due to previous

enmity. It is also submitted that on the basis of report lodged by one Bapulal, one criminal case was registered for commission of offence punishable

under Section 307 of the IPC alongwith Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 against Elkar Singh, who is the father of the

prosecutrix and in the said case the applicant is one of the witness and after completion of the trial, Elkar Singh has been convicted and sentenced by

Special Judge (SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989), Shajapur, vide judgment dated 08/11/2017 passed in Special Case No. 83/2014 for commission of offence

punishable under Section 307 of the IPC alongwith Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 and undergo 10 years RI and three years RI and to

pay fine of Rs.2,000/-and Rs.1,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation, which was the reason for the false implication of the applicant in the

present crime. It is further submitted that the allegation made by the prosecutrix against the applicant is not corroborated with the medical evidence.

The applicant is in custody since 30/08/2019. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of trial will take considerable time. Co-

accused-Ramchander has already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 09/12/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 44303/2019 and the case of the

applicant is similar to him. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State has opposed the application by contending that after granting bail to the co-accused-

Ramchander by this Court, the applicant also moved an application for grant of bail to the applicant, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court,

vide order dated 19/12/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 53452/2019 granting liberty to the applicant to renew his prayer after recording the court

statement of the prosecutrix. Now the prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court on 17/02/2020 and in her court statement, the prosecutrix

has categorically made allegation against the applicant. It is also submitted that in the case registered against the father of the prosecutrix, although the

present applicant was one the prosecution witness, however, neither he was the eye witness nor he was examined before the trial Court, therefore, it

cannot be said that due to the aforesaid enmity, the prosecutrix has made false allegation against the applicant. Hence, the case of the applicant is not

similar to co-accused-Ramchander, who has been granted bail by this Court. Hence, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State prays for

rejection of the application.

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the court statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the

trial Court, this Court is of the view that no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Accordingly, the present (third) application filed under

Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.