Palash Samtai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1893 MP

                                                          1                          MCRC-18502-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                        MCRC-18502-2021

(PALASH SAMTAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 07-05-2021 Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Arjun Singh, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Pankaj Raj, learned P.L. for the State.

Shri Lal Achyutendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the

complainant/objector.

PDF case diary is available with the Panel Lawyer. Heard on I.A. No.5731/21.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

Also considered I.A. No.6894/21.

The objection filed by the objector is taken on record. T his is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail who is in custody since

26.03.2021 in connection with Crime No.60/2021 registered at Police Station Tilwara, Jabalpur for the offences under Sections 323, 376, 376 (2) (n), 377 and 506 of IPC.

As per case of the prosecution, applicant and prosecutrix known to each other. The applicant has committed sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix. On the basis of aforesaid, offence has been registered against the applicant.

Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The prosecutrrix is major and it is a case of consent. The FIR has been lodged by a delay of 10 days. The prosecutrix under the garb of FIR is trying to extort money and illegally pressurize the applicant. The prosecutrix is in habit of lodging reports. Earlier Signature Not SAN Verified she made two complainants against the different persons. The investigation in Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 2021.05.08 15:24:36 IST 2 MCRC-18502-2021 the case has been completed. The applicant is in custody since 26.03.2021 and due to present situation of Covid-19 Pandemic, the trial would take considerable time to conclude. The applicant is the permanent resident of District Jabalpur and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence by the applicant. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is

made to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Learned Senior counsel in supported of his arguments relied on the following judgments (1) Vineet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P., (2017) 13 SCC

369. (2) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and othes (2011) 1 SCC 694.

(3) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) 2 SCC 427.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she made serious allegations against the applicant. There is sufficient evidence available against the applicant. Further, the charge-sheet has not been filed and investigation is still under progress. The seizure of mobile in which photographs were taken, is required. With these submissions prayed to dismiss the application.

Learned counsel for the Objector has vehemently opposes the application. The applicant is a influential person. He has committed heinous offence of rape and forceful unnatural sexual assault upon the prosecutrix. It is not a case of consent. The applicant and his family members are threatening the complainant and deferred her to make any complaint. The complainant has made complainant in this regard to the police authorities. In addition, learned counsel for the objector submitted that the applicant/accused was in possession of two mobile phones i.e. one was I- phone (12 mini) with number 8749999904 and second mobile set of Redmi, having the mobile number 8269999982 which was used by the applicant in 3 MCRC-18502-2021 taking the photo and making the videography during the sexual assault which is to be seized from the applicant. The applicant may influence the investigation of the case, if he released on bail. With these submissions prays for dismissal of the application.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available in the file of the case.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and the fact that the investigation is still under progress and the charge sheet has not been filed as yet. Further the mobile phone used in which it is alleged that photo and videography was taken during sexual assault by the applicant, has not been seized by the police as alleged by the objector.

So far as the judgment cited by the learned Senior counsel for the applicant is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that in the present facts and circumstances of the case the same are not helpful particularly at this stage when the investigation is incomplete.

Looking to the incomplete investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail at this stage. Consequently, the application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., stands dismissed.

(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

pb