Pankaj Engle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 154 MP

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-58034-2021 Pankaj Ingle Vs. State of MP

Gwalior, Dated : 04.01.2022

Shri Sushil Goswami, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, Counsel for the State.

Case Diary is available.

This third application under Section 439 of CrPC has been

filed for grant of bail. Second application of the applicant was

dismissed on merits by order dated 18.06.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.28477/2021.

The applicant has been arrested on 12.03.2021 in connection

with Crime No.134/2020 registered at Police Station Hazeera Distt.

Gwalior for offence under Sections 376, 506, 120-B of IPC and

Sections 3, 4 of POCSO Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according

to the prosecution case, co-accused Rahul who is brother-in-law

(Sala) of the applicant had repeatedly committed rape on the minor

prosecutrix in the hotel of the applicant. It is submitted that the

prosecutrix has turned hostile. It is further submitted that as per the

DNA test report, the DNA profile of the co-accused Rahul was found

in the incriminating article. However, the allegations are that the

applicant had provided room to the co-accused Rahul to commit rape

and the prosecutrix has turned hostile on the said aspect and thus, in

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-58034-2021 Pankaj Ingle Vs. State of MP

absence of any evidence to the effect that the applicant had provided

room to the co-accused for committing rape on the prosecutrix, at

present, there is no substantive 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, after going through the deposition-

sheets, it is fairly conceded that the prosecutrix has turned hostile and

she has not supported the prosecution case. However, it is submitted

that it is clear that either the prosecutrix had given a false information

to the police or she has not narrated the truth before the Court,

therefore, she is liable to be prosecuted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

So far as the question of prosecution of the prosecutrix is

concerned, 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 prosecutrix is warranted or not.

Considering the fact that the prosecutrix has turned hostile and

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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-58034-2021 Pankaj Ingle Vs. State of MP

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 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 Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.01.05 18:33:38 +05'30'