Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3533/2024 of SUNIL 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 VISHAL MISHRAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3533 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SUNIL, S/O SHRI BHADUR @ BHADAR, AGED ABOUT 22Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O GRAMATARSUMBA, TEHSIL SANAWAD, DISTRICTKHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPOLICE STATION PIPLOD DISTRICT KHANDWA(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.VICTIM "A"
(BY SHRI AMIT PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
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 is third repeat bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail. His earlier applications were dismissed aswithdrawn vide orders dated 29.03.2022 and 19.01.2024 passed inM.Cr.C.Nos.14931 of 2022 and 1516 of 2024 respectively.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 22.12.2021 by Police Station Piplod,District Khandwa (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.172 of 2021 registered inrelation to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) and 376(2)
(N) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(L) and 6 of Protection of ChildrenFrom Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. This application has been filed on the ground that the applicant is incustody since 22.12.2021. The prosecutrix in her statement has admitted thefactum that the applicant and prosecutrix used to live as husband and wife andthe applicant has made physical relations with her. It is further submitted thatthere is no requirement of further custodial interrogation of the applicant. Theapplicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposedby this Court while considering his bail application. In view of the aforesaid, heprays for grant of bail.
4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed thecontention stating that the prosecutrix is aged about 16 years and 3 months. Herstatement has been recorded before the trial Court prior to rejection of secondbail application. His earlier bail application was recently rejected on 19.01.2024and within a short time this application has again been filed, which is an abuseof the process of law. No new ground could be pointed out by learned counselfor the applicant. Custody period cannot be a ground to enlarge the applicanton bail. Under these circumstances, no benefit of bail can be extended to theapplicant. Hence, he prays for rejection of the bail application.
5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, looking to theheinousness of the offence coupled with the age of the victim as no new groundcould be pointed out, this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow theapplication at this stage. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA)