Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/58186/2023 of YOGESHWAR @ YASH MANKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58186 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
YOGESHWAR @ YASH MANKAR S/O BHEEMRAOMANKAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELFEMPLOYED R/O AWASTHI COLONY, HOUSE OFSUBHASH, BETUL DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR TIWARI-ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICES TATION KOTWALI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI VINAY SHARMA-PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed thefollowing:
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 first application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 ofCr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.118/2023 dated 17.02.2023registered at Police Station Kotwali District Betul (M.P.) for commission ofoffence under Sections 376(1), 376D, 506 of IPC. Applicant is in detentionsince 21.02.2023.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 17.02.2023, 20 years old prosecutrixlodged FIR alleging that she knew Yash Mankar since 2019. He had preachedher mother about Christian faith and had asked to come for prayer. As her mother use to go for prayer she also came into contact with applicant YashMankar. On 23.01.2023, when she was coming back with Yash Mankar fromprayer at Paratwada, Yash Mankar asked her to go with him to his home. Shealong with Yash went to his home. It is alleged that Yash gagged her mouth,forcibly laid her on the bed and committed rape upon her. FIR was registered.After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has not committed any offence. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. FIR hasbeen lodged after more than 25 days of the incident. Prosecutrix is a major lady.Prosecutrix has already been examined before the trial Court. Learned counselreferring to the various para of her cross-examination has submitted thatapplicant has been falsely implicated. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant maybe released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed grant of bail.
5. Applicant is a religious Guru. First of all he took prosecutrix inconfidence and then forcibly committed rape upon her. Considering the gravityof offence and having taken into consideration the material on record, I am ofthe view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.
6. Consequently, this first bail application under Section 439 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant Yogeshwar@ Yash Mankar is dismissed.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGE