Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/52578/2018 of RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018
MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.52578 of 2018 Rahul Vs. State of
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDOREM.Cr.C. No.52578 of 2018Rahul Vs. State of MP
Indore, Dated:- 31/12/2018
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner Smt.Archana Kher, learned Public Prosecutor for therespondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
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.
O R D E R
1. This is the first bail application under Section 439 of theCr.P.C. for grant of bail in Crime No.418/2018 under Sections363, 376(2)(N), 506 of the IPC and 5C/6 of the POCSO Actregistered at Police Station—Azad Nagar, District—Indore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he proposed aminor/16 years old prosecutrix to accompany him to roamaround. When she refused, he give him a handkerchief on thepretext that something is sticking on her face. As she cleaned herface with that handkerchief, she became unconscious. When sheregain her conscious, found herself at the house of Rahul(petitioner) without any clothes. When she cried and asked himto leave her at her home, the petitioner offered him a glass ofwater and after taking that water, she again fell unconscious,thereafter for 2-3 days, the petitioner kept her at his home andrepeatedly raped her. After regaining conscious, when she againcried and asked him to leave her at her home, he took her in amagic (public transport vehicle) to leave her but threatened herthat he has made videos and also clicked photographs of her andin case, she reveals the incident before anybody, he will viral allthe photographs and videos. Thereafter, he left her at home,where she revealed the incident to her mother who took her to the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDOREM.Cr.C. No.52578 of 2018Rahul Vs. State of MP
police station and lodged the report.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is thatthere is no evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix, as theprosecutrix and other witnesses themselves have stated before thepolice that documents relating to her date of birth have vanishedin the rain. Medical evidence does not corroborates with theallegation of the prosecutrix as no injury was found on themedical examination. No intoxication was also found in themedical examination. The petitioner himself is a married manand having two minor children. Therefore, he may be grantedbail.
4. Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
5. After recovery, the prosecutrix was produced before theJudicial Magistrate and in her statement under section 164 of theCr.P.C, she has categorically made allegations against thepetitioner.
6. In view of those allegations and other evidence collectedduring the investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to thepetitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2018.12.31 15:56:13 +05'30'
(Virender Singh) Judge