Ramraj Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15975 MP

                                                                1
                          IN    THE      HIGH       COURT OF MADHYA                        PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                            ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47778 of 2022

                    BETWEEN:-
                    RAMRAJ JAISWAL S/O BALDEV JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 32
                    YE A R S , R/O VILLAGE DARIYA DOL, POST MADWAS P.S.
                    MAJHOLI DIST. SIDHI (M.P.)

                                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                    (BY SHRI RISHAB SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                    AND
                    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. MAJHOLI
                    DISTRICT SIDHI (M.P.)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                    (BY SHRI ABDHESH KUMAR GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER)

                          T h is application coming on for admission this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                   following:
                                                            ORDER

This is the third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant

for grant of bail.

His first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.03.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.12017 of 2022 and second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.04.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.15728 of 2022.

The applicant has been arrested on 2309.2021 by Police Station Majholi District Sidhi in connection with Crime No.949/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 343, 376(2)(L), 376(1), 366(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1)(W)(II), 3(2)(VA) & 3 (2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 12/7/2022 3:36:17 PM

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

This repeat application has been filed on the ground that it is a case of false prosecution. The prosecutrix is habitual of making such allegations. Fifteen days prior to the incident she has also complained against another person making same allegation. The statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and the Court statement are different from each other. The case of the applicant is that it is a case of false implication, therefore, he should be enlarged on bail. It is submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. The applicant is in custody since 23.09.2021. There is very slow progress in the trial and keeping the applicant in custody for a long time will amount to pre-trial detention. He is

ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering his bail application. In view of the aforesaid, he prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the contention stating therein that the age of the victim is 16 years and 4 months at the time of commission of offence. There are specific allegation made against the present applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 and thereafter in the Court. Minor contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail especially in POCSO cases. Owing to the tender age of the victim as well as the specific allegation against him, he has prayed for rejection of the application by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2007 Vol 11 SCC

195. He submits that mere contradictions and omissions cannot be looked into and statement cannot be read into at bail stage.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow the application.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 12/7/2022 3:36:17 PM

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE AM

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 12/7/2022 3:36:17 PM