Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/46991/2020 of DINESH SONKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020
Court Of Madhya PradeshThe High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-46991-2020
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
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.
Signature NotSANVerified
The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMCRC-46991-2020
(DINESH SONKARVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
5
[31][-][12][-][2020]Jabalpur, Dated :
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
This is second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C filedon behalf of the applicant who is in custody since 12.08.2020 in connectionwith Crime No.148/2020 registered at Police Station Dharampur, DistrictPanna (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 376, 342 of theIndian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The first application filedby the applicant was dismissed on 31.10.2020 on merit.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisionsrendered in the cases of Rohit Sharma Vs. State of H.P. (2020 SCC OnLineHP 2462), Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand(2020 SCC OnLine SC779) and Gaurav Maggo Vs. State of NCT of Delhi(2015 SCC OnLine Delhi9866) and submitted that conduct of the minor prosecutrix towards applicantis to be considered. As per the missing report lodged by the father of theprosecutrix, she was 19 years old. He further alleged that prosecutrix knewvery well that the applicant was already married to another woman as she washis neighbor. The applicant was continuously in her connection andcommitted sexual intercourse. Thus, there is no reason to be believe thatunder the misconception about false promise to marry her, the prosecutrixhas given her consent to the applicant. The applicant is in judicial custodysince 12.08.2020, hence, he is entitled to enlarge on regular bail.
Under the Juvenile Justice Act, for the determination of date of birth ofthe prosecutrix, entries in the school register are material. According to thesaid document, date of birth of the prosecutrix is 07.04.2004 and incidenttook place in the month of August, 2020. Thus, on the date of incident, the Signature NotSANVerified As per medical report of the prosecutrix, doctor found that her hymenwas torn in multiple directions. She became pregnant. On the other hand, theapplicant was already married. Thus, in the light of the case laws cited by theapplicant's counsel, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant onregular bail.
Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)V. JUDGE
pnm