Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42132 of 2021
Between:-
PANKAJ JAIN S/O BABULAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINSESS
8/4, AADITYA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GULAB SHARMA)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. NEELGANGA,
UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, PANEL LAWYER)
(BY SHRI PRADEEP JAISWAL, COUNSEL FOR OBJECTOR)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
Heard on IA No.2167/2022, which is an application filed under Section 301
of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the objector/complainant for grant of permission to
assist the prosecution.
Objector/complainant is the father of the prosecutrix. He has filed his
affidavit in support of his above application which is not opposed by counsel for the
applicant and Panel Lawyer. Therefore, after due consideration, the same is allowed.
Also heard on IA No.29467/2021 which is an application filed on behalf of
the applicant for taking additional document on record.
No one has opposed the above application, therefore, the same is allowed
after due consideration.
This application coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:
ORDER
With the consent, heard finally.
Perused the case diary.
This is second repeat application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant
Signature Not Verified
SAN
o f bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 21.07.2020 in connection with
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.02.11 11:37:38 IST
Crime No.580/2020 registered at Police Station Neelganga, District Ujjain (M.P.)
for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 506, 34
and 109 of IPC, Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act and Section 67-A of IT Act.
Applicant's first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
temporary bail on the ground of illness was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court
vide order dated 17.03.2021 passed in MCRC No.8828/2021.
Prosecution story, in brief is that prosecutrix; a member of SC/ST community
aged about 16-17 years lodged FIR dated 21.07.2020 to the effect that her mother
did domestic work at the house of the applicant. About one year back, when
prosecutrix went to applicant's house for doing domestic work as her mother was ill,
applicant after knowing the fact that she is minor and member of SC/ST community,
forcefully committed rape upon her. Applicant made video recording of the aforesaid
act and thereafter, threatened and took her to different places and sexually exploited
and assaulted her and repeatedly rape upon her.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the government
employee of Excise Department. Prosecutrix alongwith her mother did domestic
work at his house and took financial help with him as well as his wife and when he
denied for the same, this false and fabricated case has been registered against him.
Prosecutrix herself admitted in her statement that she has her birth certificate but had
not produced the same. Scholar register showing her date of birth as 03.12.2003 has
not been properly proved as head master of the concerned school specifically
admitted in his statement that record on the basis of which date of birth of the
prosecutrix was mentioned had been stolen alongwith other documents of the school.
Prosecutirx is a major girl. No reasonable explanation has been produced on record
for lodging delayed FIR which is delayed about one year. Statements of the
prosecutrix alongwith other witnesses have been recorded. Learned counsel has also
relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Ranjit
Rajbanshi Vs. State of West Bengal in CRA No.458 of 2018. He is in custody
since 21.07.2020. Charge-sheet has been filed. Trial will take time to conclude and
therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant - State as well as counsel for the
objector vehemently opposes the application and submits that applicant being a
Signature Not Verified
SAN responsible government employee after knowing the fact that prosecutrix is a
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.02.11 11:37:38 IST
member of SC/ST community and minor girl, sexually assaulted her for a very long
period. He also threatened her and her family. The offences alleged against the
applicant are of serious in nature and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular
bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on record with
regard to age of the prosecutrix, delayed FIR, period of custody already suffered by
the applicant and also considering other facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without
commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with
a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his
appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by
the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.
In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19), the concerned
Jail Authority is directed to follow the directions/guidelines issued by the
Government with regard to COVID-19 before releasing the applicant.
This application is allowed and stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Vibha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.02.11 11:37:38 IST
