Shyam vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

B. K. Shrivastava, J

Heard on third appeal filed on 27.08.2020 under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act for grant of bail on behalf of appellant - Shyam Sharma. His first appeal was dismissed on 03.12.2019 and second was dismissed on 24.07.2020. The aforesaid two appeals were withdrawn after arguing for some time, therefore, this is third appeal on behalf of appellant.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Chhindwara. The trial Court dismissed the application for bail filed by the present appellant in connection with the Crime No. 163/2019 registered at Police Station Umreth, District Chhindwara M.P. under Section 366, 376(D), 506, 34 of the I.P.C., Section 67A of IT Act and Section 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It is submitted by appellant's counsel that appellant is confined in custody since 28.07.2019. It is also submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case for getting the compensation from the State. The appellant has not committed any rape. The mobile of one Sunil has not been seized. It is alleged that as per prosecution case, the clip related to the rape was deleted from the mobile of Sunil.

On the other side, the State strongly opposed the appeal. Counsel for the State draws attention towards the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the appellant is the master-mind of the crime. The appellant alongwith co-accused committed the gang-rape with the prosecutrix and also made the video-film which was viral on Whatsapp, therefore, the appellant should not be enlarged on bail.

It appears from the record that the daughter of Shyam Sharma was born in the year 2005 He wanted to include the name of his daughter in the scheme of "Ladli Lakshmi Yojana" which was launched from the year 2006. Because the girl was born before 2006, her name could not be included and the complainant/prosecutrix refused to include the name.

On the date of incident, the accused/appellant sent the false information that one madam is calling her. When the prosecutrix reached there and found that there was no any madam, thereafter the accused told her that madam had gone and they took her upon motor-cycle. Thereafter, they took the prosecutrix in the forest and laid her on the ground. Thereafter, Mukesh and Shyam committed rape one after one with the prosecutrix. Shyam Sharma also told the prosecutrix that he has recorded the incident in his mobile and if, the prosecutrix discloses the incident to anybody, then he will viral the aforesaid video. After some time, on 20.07.2019, one mobile-clip was received on the phone of Sunil, thereafter, Sunil informed the prosecutrix.

Therefore, it is clearly mentioned that both accused committed rape and also made the video-film. At present, it cannot be presumed that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case.

Therefore, looking to the overall circumstances of the case, in view of this Court, the appellant is not entitled to get the bail. Hence the trial Court did not commit any mistake by dismissing his application for bail.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.