Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14419 MP
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9753 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
YUSUF @ BITTU S/O SHRI NAYEEM BAIG, AGED ABOUT
36 YEARS, R/O BANGALI COLONY SARDAR MOHALLA
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NEERAJ DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION DEHAR DISTRICT
NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM A D/O NOT MENTION NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ALOK AGHNIHOTRI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This sixth criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram (MP), whereby the appeal of the appellant seeking bail has been rejected. His earlier appeals have already been dismissed.
The appellant is in custody since 17.04.2021 in connection with Crime
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 9/4/2023 3:31:18 PM
No.216/2021 registered at Police Station - Dehat, District Narmadapuram (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
This repeat appeal has been filed on the ground that the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial Court and there are material contradictions, omissions in her statement. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. It is further submitted that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. The appellant is in custody since 17.04.2021. It is further submitted that the appellant is ready to
abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering the appeal. Under these circumstances, he has prayed for grant of bail.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contention stating that the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses cannot be considered at the bail stage in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2007 Vol 11 SCC 195. The prosecutrix has categorically stated regarding the act committed by the appellant. There is a prompt FIR. Earlier appeal has already been considered and rejected on merit. No new ground is available to the appellant. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the statement of the prosecutrix, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage. Consequently, the appeal is hereby Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 9/4/2023 3:31:18 PM
rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 9/4/2023 3:31:18 PM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!