Rohit vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J

Heard on this first appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed on behalf of the appellant in connection with Crime No.187/2019, registered at Police Station Moondi, District Khandwa for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

This appeal is directed against the against the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Special Judge, (Atrocities), Khandwa, in Special Case ATR No.53/2019.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 01.07.2020 at about 08:10 pm when prosecutrix, aged about 28 years on the way towards her house reached near Moondi Bus Stand, a vehicle Janani Express, which was driven by appellant Rohit Gurjar, who resisted the prosecutrix to drop her to Punasa. The appellant instead of going to Punasa has taken the way to Bangarda Punarwas and after stopping the vehicle at an isolated place committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In the meanwhile, the prosecutrix had informed the incident to her husband on his mobile phone and on his instance the Police has reached on the spot and arrested the appellant. On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offences has been registered against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was well known to the appellant since last one month and has voluntarily went with him; and therefore, is a consenting party. It is further submitted that the fact that the prosecutrix has met with the appellant had come to the knowledge of the husband and on his instance, she has lodged the report. The appellant is a permanent resident of the address shown in the appeal and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. It is also submitted that the appellant 01.07.2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also filed the statements of prosecutrix (PW-1) and Inspector Neeraj (PW-3) and submitted that they have not supported the case of the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/State has vehemently opposed the bail and submitted that the Police intercepted the appellant from the place of incident. The appellant, who was believing that he and the prosecutrix were well known to each other before the offence was registered but it cannot be imagined that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly th statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.10.2019, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST), Khandwa, is upheld and present criminal appeal for grant of bail to the appellant stands dismissed.