Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramgopal Dandi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 July, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-22285-2021
(RAMGOPAL DANGI vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
JABALPUR
DATED : 06.07.2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Anil Khare, learned senior counsel with Shri Priyank
Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A. Rajeshwar Rao, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the objector.
Heard.
This is first application filed by the applicant (accused) under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
The applicant is facing trial for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5, 6 of the
POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act registered with
Police Station Banda, Sagar in Crime No.89/2011.
Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has referred to
the affidavit of Ramnath Dangi filed along with the MCRC and has
submitted that the family members of the prosecutrix are in the habit
of lodging false reports. He has also referred to the judgment dated
20th February, 2020 passed in SCATR Case No.279/2019 by the
Special Judge, SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the case of
State of M.P. Vs. Chhotu Thakur and another and has submitted that
a false complaint was made by the grandmother of the prosecutrix
which resulted into acquittal and has referred to the judgment dated
13th October, 2011 passed in Special Trial No.-2011 by the Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sagar in the case of
State of M.P. Vs. Ravindra Singh and has submitted that the aunty of
the prosecutrix had also filed the false complaint which resulted into
acquittal and he has also submitted that in the MLC no injury on the
private part of the prosecutrix has been found and hymen has been
found to be intact.
Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the State has referred
to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. as also the court statement of prosecutrix recorded as PW-2
and has submitted that a clear allegation has been made as against the
applicant and for commission of the alleged offence penetration is
not necessary and that in view of the statement of prosecutrix as also
the fact that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was aged about
seven years, no case for grant of bail is made out.
Learned counsel for the objector has also opposed the
application and has submitted that the affidavit relied upon by the
counsel for the applicant is the affidavit given by the father of the
applicant, therefore, it is of no consequence and that the alleged false
cases were registered by other residents of the village against the
other residents of the village.
Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the
parties and especially taking note of the submission of the counsel for
the State, age of the prosecutrix and the court statement of the
prosecutrix, I am of the opinion that no case for grant of bail at this
stage is made out.
The MCRC is accordingly rejected.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
DV
Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2021.07.06
17:25:51 +05'30'
