Sonu Maurya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is fifth application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 3.6.2018 in connection with Crime No.76/2018 registered by Police Station Bijoli, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 354, 376, 506 of IPC and under Section 3/4, 7/8 of POCSO Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that although the prosecutrix has been examined but in her Court evidence she has turned hostile in respect of some of the accused persons and thus she had substantially changed her version from the statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be considered as a credible evidence. It is further submitted that earlier this Court had granted temporary bail to the applicant and in compliance of said order the applicant has surrendered which clearly indicates that the applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this Court and it is further submitted that since the prosecutrix has already been examined, therefore, now there is no possibility of winning over the prosecutrix and thus it is prayed that the applicant may be granted bail who is in jail from 3.6.2018.

Per contra, the application is opposed by the counsel for the State.

So far as the reliability and credibility of the evidence is concerned, this Court cannot assess the same at the stage of bail because it is for the Trial Court to do the needful. The Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhatisgarh and Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 195 has held as under:-

"12. Normally in the offence of non-bailable also, bail can be granted if the facts and circumstances so demand. We have already observed that in granting bail in non- bailable offence, the primary consideration is the gravity and the nature of the offence. A reading of the order of the learned Chief Justice shows that the nature and the gravity of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of the society was not at all considered. We are more concerned with the observations and findings recorded by the learned Chief Justice on the credibility and the evidential value of the witnesses at the stage of granting bail. By making such observations and findings, the learned Chief Justice has virtually acquitted the accused of all the criminal charges levelled against him even before the trial. The trial is in progress and if such findings are allowed to stand it would seriously prejudice the prosecution case. At the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of the prima facie case established for granting bail. It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial."

So far as the question of non-misuse of the temporary bail granted by this Court is concerned, merely because the applicant had surrendered after the period of temporary bail was over would not be sufficient to grant bail to the applicant.

So far as the question that since the prosecutrix has been examined and now there is no possibility of winning over the prosecutrix is concerned, this Court is the case of Bhupat Singh by order dated 11/5/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14129/2018 has held that the said ground cannot be said to be sufficient for grant of bail. The order passed in the case of Bhupat Singh (supra) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Cri.) No.5103/2018.

Since the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case so far as the applicant is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.