Kavita Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7529 MP

-1-                                          MCRC No.53472/2021

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
                        MCRC NO.53472/2021
Kavita Thakur w/o Rajesh Thakur
Age 48 years, occupation Pvt. Job,
R/o B5 Balaji Nagar, Near D Mar,
Vadodra (Gujarat)                           ......Applicant.

vs.


State of M.P through
police station Ingoriya Tehsil
Badnagar, district Ujjain.                .......Respondent.

17.11.2021: (Indore):

Shri Sandeep Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned Panel Advocate for the State.

This is 4th repeat application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with crime no.141/2019 registered at police station Ingoriya, district Ujjain for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 120B, 109, 368, 354 & 354(A) IPC and section 5 & 6 of the POCSO Act. The details of the earlier bail applications are as under:

Case No.                Date                   Result
MCRC No.44674/21        18.11.2020             Dismissed
MCRC No.5261/21         03/02/21               Dismissed
MCRC No.29054/21        18.06.2020             Dismissed

As per prosecution story, on 9.4.2019 uncle of prosecutrix lodged a report that the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years and two months, went to the house of her maternal uncle where the son of the applicant used to visit and he developed a friendship with the prosecutrix. On 08.07.2019 near about 11.30 hrs. she left the house without informing anyone. On the basis of the said missing report the police registered an FIR against Prince Thakur, Om Thakur, Kavita Thakur. Initinally the offence u/s 363 IPC was registered and thereafter the prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded. On the basis of her statement the

-2- MCRC No.53472/2021

offences under sections 376 IPC and other offences under the POCSO Act were added and the accused were arrested. The police filed the charge sheet on 18.9.2020.

This Court had rejected the earlier bail applications but liberty has been granted to the applicant in the third repeat application to repeat the prayer after examination of the material witnesses. Now the prosecutrix has been examined as PW/1, father of the prosecutrix as PW/2 and mother as PW/3, however, they are not supporting the case of the prosecution on any of the charge. They have completely denied the allegations made in the FIR as well as statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix has even denied that she was not minor at the time of the alleged incident and no consent was given for her medical examination.

In view of the aforesaid statement even the Govt. Advocate is not in a position to say anything in the matter of bail, hence the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

It is a serious concern of this Court that after lodging the FIR and recording the statements of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.p.C, the witnesses are turning hostile and by that time the accused remain in jail for months together, therefore, the trial court is directed to consider this aspect while passing the final judgment as to whether it is a case of false implication or the witnesses have turned hostile because of some compromise or not.

C.c as per rules.

        Digitally signed by HARI
        KUMAR C G NAIR
                                               (VIVEK RUSIA)
        Date: 2021.11.17 17:18:01                 JUDGE
        +05'30'
hk/