Mayur Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 83 MP

                                   1                            MCRC-53353-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                MCRC No. 53353 of 2021
              (MAYUR KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur, Dated : 03-01-2022
      Shri V.R Daniel, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Anil Uphadhya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.

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

T h e applicant has been arrested on 18/01/2020 by Police Station Kewlari, District Seoni in connection with Crime No.13/2020 registered in

relation to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376, 376 (2) (n), 109, 366 and Section 3, 4, 5(1), 6 of POSCO and Section 3(1), (w),(i, 3(2) (v) of ST/ST Act.

It is alleged that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. The allegation against the present applicant is that he has committed rape with the victim aged about 16 years. It is argued that the applicant as well as the victim were having love affair and out of her own will she has compromised with the present applicant. The statement of the victim as well as her parents have been

recorded before the trail Court, wherein they have not stated anything regarding the date of birth of the victim. On the contrary, it is stated that their marriage has taken place and the first child was borne immediately after one year of the marriage. Victim is a major at the time of commission of offence. It is argued that the entry made in the Scholar Register is having no value.

Considering the fact that nothing has been stated by the parents of the victim regarding the date of birth and the entry made in the scholar register. There is no proof with respect to the source of information on the basis of which those entries are made in the scholar register. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Munna Alias Shambhoo Nath reported in (2016) 1 SCC 696.

2 MCRC-53353-2021 As the statement of the victim and the parents have already been recorded, there is no apprehension that tampering with the witness will take place. Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that victim as well as applicant have traveled at various places and she resided with the applicant on her own will. There was no complaint made by the

victim at any point of time. He is in custody since 18/01/2020. He is the first offender. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering the bail of the applicant. On these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for State has vehemently opposed the application stating that age of the victim as per the school entry record is 16 years at the time of commission of offence. Admittedly, she was a minor. Therefore, there is no logic of consent of the victim. He fairly submits that the entry is made in the school register are having corroborative value. There is no denial by any of the witness regarding the entry made in the school register. The incident is medically corroborated. He has admitted the fact that he himself went to school for getting the date of birth recorded and admission in the school. In such circumstances, the source from which the date of birth has been recorded is fully proved by the statement of father. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit reported in AIR 1988 SC 1796 has held as under:

" If entry regarding date of birth in the scholar's register is made on the information given by parents or someone having special knowledge of the fact, the same would have probative value".

The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. State of U.P reported in 1969 AIR 1625 has considered the aspect that the date of birth recorded in the school register is duly affirmed by the statement or affidavit.

Similar situation in the present case is that, the father of the victim has admitted in his cross-examination that he himself went to the school for 3 MCRC-53353-2021 recording the date of birth at the time of admission of the child in the school. Admittedly she was minor at the time of commission of offence.

In such circumstances, no case for grant of bail is made out, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the present applicant on bail.

Consequently, the application is hereby rejected.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

Prar

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.01.06 16:52:44 +05'30'