Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Loniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4306 of 2022
Between:-
VINOD LONIYA S/O SHRI SURESH LONIYA ,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR GOPALPURA P.S. RAMPURNAIKIN
DIST. SIDHI MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI B.J.CHOURASIA, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
P.S. AMAHIYA DIST. REWA MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANIL UPADHYAY, PANEL LAWYER)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed
b y the applicant for grant of bail. Earlier bail application was dismissed for
want of prosecution vide order dated 11/12/2020 passed in Cr.A
No.3915/2020.
T h e applicant has been arrested on 16/03/2020 by Police Station-
Amahiya, District Rewa (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.99/2020 for the
offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (i), 376-D of IPC, Section 3/4 of
the POCSO Act and Sections 3 (1) (w) (ii) and 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
It is pointed out that the statements of the prosecutrix as well as mother
of the prosecutrix was recorded before the trial court and the mother has
categorically stated in her statement that the offence was not committed by
the present applicant and there are material contradictions and omissions in
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.02.11 11:56:58 IST
the statement of the prosecutrix herself. Initially she has stated that she was
not aware of the names of the accused persons and subsequently has
admitted that the names were told by the police authorities. It is argued that
the applicant is in custody since 16/03/2020. It is submitted that the report is
also made after one day. There is no further requirement of custodial
interrogation of the applicant in the matter. He is ready to abide by all terms
and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering his
application for grant of bail.
Looking to the custody period and the fact that the statements of
victim and mother have already been recorded and to a certain extent they
have not supported the prosecution story. Even the date mentioned in the
scholar register is also disputed by filing certain documents to point out that
the description of parents in the scholar register is also different; therefore,
there is possibility that the date of birth is wrongly been registered. On these
grounds, he prays for grant of bail.
P er contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer stating that she was minor at the time of commission of
offence and she has categorically stated against the present applicant in the
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. The
statement of the prosecutrix is looked into and she has categorically stated
that the applicant has committed rape with her. It is argued that the
appreciation of statements of witnesses at this stage are not permissible. In
view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2007 (11)
SCC 195 and the same cannot be taken into consideration. She has not been
declared hostile.In such circumstances, no case for grant of bail is made out.
As it is the case of gang rape.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and placing
reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
o f Satish Jaggi (supra). This court does not deem it appropriate to allow
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.02.11 11:56:58 IST
this application. Application is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.02.11 11:56:58 IST
