Paras Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3949 MP

                                                           1
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                                              ON THE 14 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38817 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          PARAS RAIKWAR S/O RAHUL RAIKWAR, AGED ABOUT
                          21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O JHUGGI
                          NO.14, KATSHI SUNHARI BLOCK T.T. NAGAR, BHOPAL
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI HEMANT VERMA - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                POLICE STATION T.T. NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    VICTIM A S/O NOT            MENTION THROUGH
                                CONCERNING POLICE          STATION  (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                          ( SHRI RAJESH SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT
                          NO.1/STATE)

                                Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                            ORDER

This repeat (second) bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The applicant is in custody since 21/11/2021 in connection with Crime No.1003/2021 registered at Police Station T.T. Nagar, District Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 3/16/2023 11:44:14 AM

Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 465, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120 of IPC and under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16/03/2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4779/2022.

As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant alongwith co- accused Ritvik Verma @ Sukku took the minor prosecutrix to Aurangabad, Maharashtra and kept there her in hotel Shivam, where applicant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the alleged offence merely on the basis of memorandum of co-accused- Ritvik @ Sukku. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution case, at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was studying in class 10th of Saint Mary School Bhopal and she is aged about 15 years and 11 months and her date of birth alleged to be 02/12/2005. However, in paragraph 19 of her cross-examination, she deposed that her brother is one year younger than her and is studying in class 12th and in paragraph 29 of her testimony, the prosecutrix reaffirmed that her younger brother is studying in class 12th. She also admits that she has never failed in any class. Thus, in the light of her above statements, reliance cannot be placed on the alleged birth certificate (Ex. P/6) produced by the prosecution as the same is issued in the year 2009 i.e. after a delay of four years in getting the birth registered. It is pertinent to note that the average age of a student of a 12th standard is 17 years old, which

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 3/16/2023 11:44:14 AM

leads to a conclusion that the prosecutrix is aged about more than 18 years at the time of alleged incident. It is also submitted that in paragraph nos. 12, 26, 27 & 34 of the court statement, the prosecutrix has exonerated. It is further submitted that parents of the prosecutrix, intentionally did not come up before the trial Court for recording their statement to delayed the trial. It is also submitted that the applicant is in custody since 21/11/2021 and out of 25 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined till today. The correct age of the prosecutrix shall be determined only after conclusion of trial. Thus, looking to the testimony of the prosecutrix creating a doubt with regards to her correct age. Hence, there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Invstigation & Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825, Aasim Khan Vs. State of M.P., AIR Online 2023 and order passed by this Court, vide order dated 07/02/2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3716/2022 (in the case of Shobit Nigam Vs. State of M.P.), On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the

b a i l application by contending that after rejection of earlier bail application of the applicant, there appears to be no change of circumstances. Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection of bail application.

Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 3/16/2023 11:44:14 AM

and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any change of circumstances, in which this repeat application can be considered. So far as the judgments/orders relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, they are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even though, at the stage of grant of bail, detailed appreciation of the evidence is not permissible.

In view of above, no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Accordingly, this repeat (second) application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE skt

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 3/16/2023 11:44:14 AM