Sandeep vs State Of M.P

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.112/2019, registered at Police Station-Balwada, District-Khargone concerning offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC alongwith Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a youth of aged about 21 years and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime. The applicant is in custody since 14/06/2019. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated 29/01/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 52547/2019 granting liberty to the applicant to renew his prayer after recording the court statement of the prosecutrix. The examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix was recorded on 12/10/2019 and she has been cross-examined on 13/03/2020 and in her cross-examination, she disowned her previous statement. Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the bail application by contending that the prosecutrix is a minor girl and she has made allegation against the applicant regarding abduction and commission of rape in her examination-in-chief, however, her cross was deferred and thereafter she has given statement in favour of the applicant, which indicates that she was win over by the applicant, therefore, in the light of  judgment passed by  the Apex Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 AIR 1853, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for rejection of the application.

After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief but her cross examined was deferred and thereafter, some inconsistencies comes in her cross-examination, however, at the time of deciding bail application the detailed appreciation of the evidence is not permissible, hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed.