Dinesh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 18134 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                               ON THE 31 st OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34097 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DINESH PARMAR S/O KALU PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 43
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOR VILLAGE KALIBILLODI,
                           POLICE STATION BETMA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                           ( BY SHRI RAJAT RAGHUWANSHI- ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                 HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                 BETMA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    PROSECUTRIX/VICTIM STATION HOUSE OFFICER
                                 POLICE STATION BETMA DISTRICT INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (STATE BY SHRI MUKESH SHARMA GA )
                           OBJECTOR BY THSIR UMANG MITHA- ADVOCATE)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Heard on IA no. 16456/2023, which is an application for taking additional documents on record.

2/ The said documents may be relevant for proper adjudication of the matter, therefore, the I.A is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

3/ Also heard on IA no. 12354/2023 for rejection of bail application;

Signature Not Verified I.A. no. 12355/2023, which is an application filed under section 301(2) of Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 31-10-2023 17:47:42

Cr.P.C and IA no. 16570/2023, which is an application for withdrawal of the objection.

4/ Objection has been filed by the objector, but now, he wants to withdraw the objection, therefore, I.A. no. 16570/2023 is allowed and he is permitted to withdraw his objection.

5/ Accordingly, I.A nos. 12354/2023 and 12355/2023 also stands disposed of.

6/ Heard learned counsel for both the parties on the bail application. 7/ This is repeated third application for grant of regular bail. Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, but his second

bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 03/01/2023 passed in MCRC no. 55883./2022 by this Court.

8/ Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after passing of earlier order, mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has been examined before the trial Court and she has turned hostile. Father of the prosecutrix has also been examined before the trial Court and he has categorically deposed that the prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident, therefore, these are the material changes in the circumstances. Final conclusion of the trial will take sufficient long time. Hence he prays that in the material change in the circumstance, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

9/ Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the application and prays for its rejection by submitting that the applicant's earlier bail application was dismissed on merit after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case .

10/ Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the court Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 31-10-2023 17:47:42

below.

11/ Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation as also taking note of the fact that prosecutrix stated that present applicant abducted her committed rape upon her. As per the scholar register, date of birth of the prosecutrix is 10.05.2005 therefore, it appears that at the time of incident prosecutrix was minor and her mother (PW-2) has also supported the case.

12/ At the stage of consideration of bail, marshaling of the prosecution witnesses is not permissible 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."

13/ 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.

14/ 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 31-10-2023 17:47:42

applicant.

15/ Accordingly, the third bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

C.C. as per rules

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE amol

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 31-10-2023 17:47:42