Rajbhan Kewat vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 4613 MP

                                  1                                CRA-5594-2020
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   CRA-5594-2020
                 (RAJBHAN KEWAT Vs THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)

17
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-08-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Mr. Suyash Mohan Guru, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Ms. Shanti Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.

None for the victim though served.

Heard on this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed on behalf of the appellant in Crime No.03/2018 registered at Police Station-Amarkantak, District-Anuppur (M.P.) under Sections 363, 366 (a), 368, 370(4)/109 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As per case of the prosecution, on 22.12.2017, at about 08:00 am the prosecutrix, aged about 11 years has been found disappeared from her house situated at Hindalco Colony, Amarkantak under the jurisdiction of Police

Station-Amarkantak, District Anuppur. Her grand-father Sampat Das Panika lodged a report against unknown persons. On that basis, offence under Section 363 of IPC has been registered. During the course of investigation the prosecutrix has been recovered on 08.04.2018 by the concerning Police and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been recorded in which she has narrated the name of the appellant and other co-accused persons regarding her kidnapping and taking her to Amarkantak later on, to Paali where the appellant and co-accused persons committed intercourse with the prosecutrix.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no external and internal injury was found on the person 2 CRA-5594-2020 of the prosecutrix. No definite opinion has been given by the doctor of recent intercourse. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed upon him. It is also submitted that the appellant has been in custody since 20.04.2018. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State on the other hand has

opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed the Court statement of the prosecutrix.

There is no need to scrutinize the statement of prosecution witness as the same is required to be adjudicated at the of judgment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail.

Consequently, this appeal for bail under Section 14(1) (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is dismissed.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE

julie

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH Date: 2021.08.24 17:24:39 IST