Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/53115/2023 of ROHIT MAJARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53115 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ROHIT MAJARE S/O SHRI RAJKUMAR MEHTAROCCUPATION: LABOUR (RAILWAY CONTRACTEMPLOYEE) RESIDENT OF IN FRONT OF GALI NO 14RAJENDRA NAGAR P.S. KOTWALI DISTRICT SATNA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AVNISH TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
1.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION BADWARA THANA DISTRICT KATNI(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.VICTIM I.E. PROSECUTRIX D/O NOT MENTIONTHROUGH POLICE STATION BADWARA THANADISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI G.S. THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTNO.1)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is the third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by theapplicant for grant of bail, who is in custody since 10.10.2020, in connectionwith Crime No.04 of 2020 registered at Police Station Badwara Thana, Katni,District Katni for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 328,376(2)(N), 376(3), 34 of the IPC, Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act and Sections
3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989. His first and second bail applications were dismissed aswithdrawn vide order dated 04.01.2022 and 03.09.2022 passed inM.Cr.C.No.49898 of 2021 and M.Cr.C.No.37528 of 2022 respectively.
2. This repeat application has been filed on the ground that the applicant is incustody since 10.10.2020 and trial is not concluded till date. He furthersubmitted that he is cooperating the investigating agency. It is submitted that thestatement of the prosecutrix has been recorded and there are contradictions andomissions in her statement. As the statement of the prosecutrix has beenrecorded there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the presentapplicant in the case. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions thatmay be imposed by this Court while considering the application for grant ofbail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail.
3. There is dispute with respect to the age of the prosecutrix. He hasconfronted this court regarding the age of the prosecutrix where the statementof the prosecutrix was read over from which it is clearly visible that theprosecutrix was major at the time of commission of offence.
4. Per contra, State counsel has vehemently opposed the application statingthat the prosecutrix age was recorded from the school records. She was 14yeas 08 months and 06 days at the time of commission of offence. There arespecific allegations made against the present applicant in the court statement.Therefore prays for dismissal of the application.
5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, andmerelycustody period cannot be the ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.custody period cannot be the ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
6. Application is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA)JUDGE