Narayan Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8320 MP

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-57545-2021 Narayan Singh Parihar v. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated: 06.12.2021

Shri Pawan Kumar , Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Nitin Goyal, Counsel for State.

Shri Harish Sharma, Counsel for the Complainant.

Case Diary is available.

This second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed for grant of bail. Previous application was dismissed by order

dated 06.04.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 17867/2021.

The applicant has been arrested on 27.04.2021 in connection

with Crime No.110/2021 registered by Police Station Madhoganj

Distt. Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 of

IPC.

The first bail application of the applicant has already been

considered and decided on merits by order dated 07.05.2021 passed

in M.Cr.C. No. 22477/2021. The prosecutrix has been examined and

partially cross-examined.

The Counsel for the applicant tried to convince this Court by

drawing attention to certain admissions made by the prosecutrix in

her cross-examination about her previous conduct. However, this

Court in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case of Satish jaggi v. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2007)

11 SCC 195 cannot go into reliability and credibility of the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-57545-2021 Narayan Singh Parihar v. State of M.P.

witnesses. The said discretion lies with the trial Court and it has to be

exercised by the trial Court only.

At this stage, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant

that earlier the prosecutrix was partially cross-examined and since the

Court working hours was over, therefore, her cross-examination

could not complete, but thereafter the prosecutrix is not appearing.

However, it is submitted by Shri Harish Sharma that he had

talk to the prosecutrix who has stated that today the case is fixed for

recording of her further cross-examination and she would appear

before the trial Court.

Be that whatever it may be.

In view of the fact that the prosecutrix has supported the

prosecution case and in the light of judgment passed in the case of

Satish Jaggi (supra), this Court cannot look into the reliability and

credibility of the witnesses at this stage, the application fails and is

hereby dismissed.

However, liberty is granted to the applicant to revive the

prayer, if there is any undue delay in the trial.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge ar

ABDUR RAHMAN 2021.12.06 18:26:57 +05'30'