MCRC/46804/2018 of LAVKUSH MEHTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018

The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMCRC-46804-2018

(LAVKUSH MEHTAVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

4

[31][-][12][-][2018]Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri A.K. Kosta, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Pramod Choubey, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is first bail application filed by applicant Lavkush Mehtaunder Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection CrimeNo.78/2018 registered at Police Station Chandameta, District-Chhindwara (M.P) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 363-A,366-A, 376(2)NJ, 376(D), 370(A), 370(3)(A), 344, 346 of the IPC &Section 3(A)(4), 5(L), 6, 16, 17 of the POCSO Act 2012.

As per the prosecution case, co-accused Ranjeeta and Shyamwatiintroduced the co-accused Sangit to prosecutrix who was minor at thetime of incident. Co-accused Ranjeeta and Shyamwati made her talk toco-accused Sangit on mobile. On 17/04/2018 co-accused Sangit andVishal came to co-accused Ranjeeta’s house. She sent prosecutrixwith them. Co-accused Sangit and Vishal took the prosecutrix toChandameta on bike, where they kept her in the house of Sangit’sfriend. Where Sangit committed rape with the prosecutrix. On the nextday co-accused Sangit and Vishal took her to Nasrullaganj, where theykept her in the house of Sangit’s relative, where also co-accusedSangit committed rape with her. Thereafter Sangit took the prosecutrix tohis aunt’s, house and where he kept her for one month and committedrape with her. Thereafter Sangit took her to Hoshangabad, from whereapplicant Lavkush and co-accused Seema Kahar, Raju and Sangit tookher to Kota, Rajasthan at co-accused Chetram’s house and they soldthe prosecutrix to Chetram in Rs.2.50 Lakhs. Thereafter, co-accusedChetram committed rape with the prosecutrix.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has notcommitted any offence and have falsely been implicated in the offence.There is no evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime.Police only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused implicated theapplicant in the crime. Prosecutrix in her statement recorded by theJudicial Magistrate First Class under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. did not statethat applicant is also involved in the crime. The applicant is in custody Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submittedthat the applicant is also involved in the crime and he alongwith co-accused Sangit abducted the prosecutrix. So he should not be released onbail.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the factsand circumstances of the case and as to the fact that in the statement of theprosecutrix recorded by JMFC under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. it is notmentioned that applicant is also involved in the crime and applicant is incustody since 29/07/2018 and charge-sheet has been filed and conclusionof trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case theapplication is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released onbail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. FiftyThousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Courton all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court duringthe pendency of trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of thefollowing conditions by the applicant :