Ram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8610 MP

      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C.No. 55424/2021
                   (Ram Vs. State of M.P. )
                                                                  1

Jabalpur, Dated : 10 / 12/ 2021
      Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior counsel with Shri Sahil
Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Arnav Tiwari, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Applicant Ram was arrested on 15/10/2019 in Crime No.566/2019 registered at Police Station Amla, District Betul (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376(D) of IPC.

The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.47843/2019, the second bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 11.12.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10686/2020 and the third bail application for dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 30.07.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 27359/2021.

As per the prosecution case, Prosecutrix's Aadhaar card was lost, she needed an Aadhaar card, so she contacted co-accused Chhote Pawar, who was the resident of her village. He called the prosecutrix at village Amla on the pretext that he would get her Aadhaar card prepared. On 17/09/2020 prosecutrix reached Amala, where co-accused Chhote Pawar kept her in a room. On 09/10/2019 at around 09:00 pm applicant Ram and co-accused Chhote Pawar took the prosecutrix to Ram's farm, located at village Shivpuri by a Scorpio Jeep, where applicant and co- accused Chhote Pawar committed rape with her. On 13/10/2019, co-accused Chhote Pawar took the prosecutrix at aerodrome Bodakhi, where the applicant and co-accused Chhote Pawar forced THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 55424/2021 (Ram Vs. State of M.P. )

her to write a suicide note. Thereafter they sent her with co- accused Mangal Yadav who took the prosecutrix to his farm located at village Ratedakala, where he committed rape with the prosecutrix and kept her in a house located at village Ratedakala. On 14/10/2019 relatives of the prosecutrix came there and rescued her.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. The statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial Court. There are many contradictions and omissions in her statement regarding the involvement of the applicant in the crime. The statement of the prosecutrix also does not corroborate by the DNA examination report. In the DNA report, it is clearly mentioned that the DNA profile of chromosomes found on prosecutrix's panty does not match with the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of applicant Ram. Even her statement also does not corroborate by the statement of Suman (PW-10) landlady of the prosecutrix which clearly shows the prosecutrix falsely implicated the applicant in the crime. The applicant has been in custody since 15/10/2019 and the conclusion of the trial will take time, hence prayed for the release of the applicant on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant and co-accused Chhote Pawar and Mangal Yadav committed rape with the prosecutrix. In the DNA report, it is mentioned that the DNA profile of male chromosomes found on prosecutrix's panty is matched with the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of co-accused Chhote Pawar. So the statement of the prosecutrix, corroborated by the DNA report on the point that co-accused Chhote Pawar made sexual relations THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 55424/2021 (Ram Vs. State of M.P. )

with her. So only on the basis of the DNA report, the statement of the prosecutrix that the applicant also committed rape with her cannot be disbelieved. It cannot be said that the applicant was not involved in the crime. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded by the trial Court clearly stated that the applicant committed rape with her. The veracity of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be ascertained by evaluating her statement on merits, at this stage, So, he should not be released on bail.

The earlier second bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this court vide order dated 11.12.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10686/2020, thereafter there is no change in circumstance except the custody period of the applicant. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director, (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, cannot be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence. Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 observed "It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments."

The prosecutrix in her statement clearly deposed that applicant also committed rape with her. Applicant has criminal past other offences are also registered against him. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 55424/2021 (Ram Vs. State of M.P. )

learned counsel for the State, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.

However, it also appears from the record that the applicant is in custody since 15.12.2019, while the trial is still pending, so it is expected from the trial Court to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

The office is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

                                                               (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
 sarathe                                                             Judge



Digitally signed by
NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Date: 2021.12.11
11:51:04 +05'30'