Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 14048/2022
(Mukul vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated 11.04.2022
Shri Sushil Goswami, counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Counsel for State.
Case diary is available.
This third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
for grant of bail. Second application of the applicant was dismissed as
withdrawn by order dated 24.02.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4478/2022.
The applicant has been arrested on 08.06.2021 in connection with
Crime No.63/2021 registered at Police Station Goraghat, District Datia for
offence under Sections 376(d), 450, 506 of IPC.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the
prosecution case the applicant along with other co-accused persons entered
inside the house of the prosecutrix and the co-accused Amit committed
rape on her whereas the applicant and others disrobed her and caught hold
of her. It is submitted that the prosecutrix has turned hostile in toto.
Accordingly, by order dated 23.02.2022 the DNA test report was called.
It is submitted by Smt. Gyanani that the DNA test report has been
received and as per the same the DNA profile of the co-accused Amit Sahu
was not found in the vaginal slides and other incriminating articles of the
prosecutrix.
In view of the DNA test report, it is submitted that the entire
allegations alleged by the prosecutrix were false and she has turned hostile,
therefore, there is no substantial evidence against the applicant. The trial is
likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his
absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for
the State. However, it is fairly conceded that the DNA test report does not
indicates the presence of DNA profile of Amit Sahu, but it is submitted
that it appears that either the witnesses had made a false report or they
have not narrated the true facts before the Court, therefore, they are liable
to be prosecuted.
Whether the prosecution of witnesses is desirable or not is left to the
discretion of the Trial Court. Therefore, it is directed that the Trial Court
while deciding the trial shall address on this issue also and shall pass a
specific order as to whether the prosecution of the witnesses is warranted
or not.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without
commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is
directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to
appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of
bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case
of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on 18.03.2021 in
Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be
sent to the complainant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
van
VANDANA VERMA
2022.04.11
19:06:55 -07'00'
