Rohit Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14152 MP

                                                         1



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                                         ON THE 2nd OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                   MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37426 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          ROHIT CHOUHAN S/O SHRI
                          BANSHILAL CHOUHAN, AGED
                          ABOUT       20    YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O
                          VILLAGE BICHKUWA, THE
                          SATWAS, P.S. KHATEGAON,
                          DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)
                                                                          .....APPLICANT
                          (SHRI RAJESH JAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA
                          PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER THROUGH POLICE
                          STATION      KHATEGAON,
                          DISRICT  DEWAS  (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)
                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI MUKESH SHARMA, LEARNED GA APPEARING ON BEHALF
                          OF ADVOCATE GENERAL; AND
                          SHRI JITENDRA MANDLOI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT [COMP])

                                This application coming on for hearing this day, the court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 11/2/2022
6:05:19 PM
                                                              2



                          passed the following:
                                                         O R D E R

This is the fifth repeat bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after rejecting the earlier application vide order dated 22/11/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.28974/2021 prosecution has examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. Medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has failed to prove that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incidence. There is no medical evidence to connect the applicant with the aforementioned offence. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter due to some previous enmity. He is suffering jail incarceration since 16/03/2020 and final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient long time. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that applicant's earlier bail application was rejected on merit vide order dated 22/11/2021 and after that there is no material change in the circumstances. Hence, applicant is not entitled to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/2/2022 6:05:19 PM

enlarged on bail.

Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also taking note of the fact that as per the status report sent by the trial Court case is fixed for prosecution evidence but the prosecution witnesses did not turn before the trial Court despite service of notices. Applicant's earlier application was rejected on merits vide order dated 22/11/2021 after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and this court has held that the prosecutrix's date of birth is 05/03/2002 and she was minor at the time of incidence. Prosecutrix has also supported the prosecution story in her statement recorded before the trial Court.

At the stage of consideration of bail, marshalling of the prosecution witnesses is not permitted as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors. (Cr.A.No.651/2007) decided on 30/07/2007, wherein it has been held as under:-

"At the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of prima facie case established for granting bail. It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/2/2022 6:05:19 PM

As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Jaggi (supra), this Court can only go into the question of the prima-facie case established for granting bail. At the stage of consideration of bail, this Court cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution.

In view of the above, without commenting upon the merits of the case, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the fifth repeat bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) J U D G E Tej

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/2/2022 6:05:19 PM