Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Baghel @ Mahfoosh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3904
1 MCRC-339-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 24 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 339 of 2025
ANKIT BAGHEL @ MAHFOOSH BAGHEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - PL for State.
Shri Vishal Singh Bhadoria- Advocate for complainant.
ORDER
This is the fifth bail application under Section 483 of BNSS and 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail.
The applicant is in custody since 16.01.2023 in connection with Crime No.8/2023
registered at Police Station - Bhitarwar, District Gwalior (M.P.) for commission
of offence punishable under section 305, 376, 506, 109 of the Indian Penal Code
of 1860, Section 3/4 of POCSO and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act. Earlier four
bail applications for the applicant have been dismissed as withdrawn and none of
them have been dealt merits.
2 As per prosecution story, the deceased committed suicide on 1-01-2023
by hanging from her room's ceiling hook. Thereafter, during the inquest, the sister
of the deceased, Rashmi Jatav, and the father, Jagdish Jatav, in their statements,
alleged that the applicant had done wrong things by having physical relations with
the deceased. Every day, the applicant and the other two accused, all three of
them, kept forcing the deceased to do wrong things and threatened her that if she
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3904
2 MCRC-339-2025
told this to her father and mother, they would defame her, leave her with no place
to live ,and kill her parents and brother. For this reason, the deceased, being
harassed by the applicant and the other co-accused ,committed suicide by hanging
herself. The deceased also wrote in her register that the recording of this was in
her elder sister's mobile. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an
innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. He is in
custody since 16.01.2023. Including the family members of the deceased
prosecutrix, all the material prosecution witnesses have been examined. Therefore,
there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. DNA report was found
positive against the co-accused- Suneel, who has been already enlarged on bail.
Applicant is a permanent resident of District Datia. Final conclusion of the trial is
likely to take sufficient long time. Deceased has committed committed suicide due
to her parents. Suicide note is also a suspicious document. There is no forensic
analysis on the suicide note and the suicide note is not supported by any hand
writing expert. Under the above changed circumstances, prayer for grant of bail
may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and
proper.
4 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail
application and prays for its rejection by submitting that almost all the prosecution
witnesses have deposed against the applicant. DNA is also found positive against
the present applicant. Suicide note is also indictive to the applicant ,hence he does
not deserve for bail.
5. Learned counsel for complainant also vehemently opposed the prayer and
prayed for its rejection.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3904
3 MCRC-339-2025
6. Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary.
7. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and
gravity of offence, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it
appears that PW-1, Rashmi Jatav has deposed against the applicant and has
supported the story of the prosecution. The DNA report was also found positive
against the applicant. The DNA was found positive against co-accused Suneel
also, but the case of present applicant is different from the co-accused Sunil who
has been enlarged on bail. The deceased prosecutrix has also levelled specific
allegations against the applicant that he has established physical relations with her.
Although, 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court
but at the stage of consideration of bail, detail marshalling of witness is not
permissible as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Jaggi
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (Cr.A. No.651/2007) decided on 30.7.2007.
8. In view of the above, looking to the facts available on record, this Court
is not inclined to grant bail. Hence, this fifth bail application filed by applicant is
dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Vishal
