Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12698
1 MCRC-9037-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 24th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9037 of 2025
RAKESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Gupta - Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The applicant has filed the first bail application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023/439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail in connection
with Crime No.17/2025 registered at Police Station Dehat Basoda, District
Vidisha (M.P.) for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 137
(2), 87, 65 (1) of BNS and 3/4 of POCSO Act.
2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is lodged in jail
since 06.02.2025. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the father of
the prosecutrix lodged an F.I.R. that his daughter is 15 years 10 months left
from his home on 15.01.2025 at about 10:00 am. However, subsequent she
went missing and he had apprehension that his daughter has been abducted
by the present applicant.
3. On the basis of the F.I.R., the investigation was conducted and the
daughter was recovered and accordingly, the offences against the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12698
2 MCRC-9037-2025
are registered. In her statement under Section 183 of BNS, the prosecutrix
stated that the offence has been committed on her by the applicant. In
furtherance of the proceedings, the forensic examination was done and DNA
report was found positive against the present applicant. For the purposes of
determination of age, the prosecution has relied upon the mark-sheet and the
certificate issued by the Principal of the School wherein, the date of birth of
the prosecutrix is stated to be on 01.03.2009.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that after registration of the
offence, the statements of the prosecutrix as well as her father and mother
has been recorded before the trial Court on 05.05.2025 and in the said
statements, the prosecutrix as well as her parents have not supported the case
of the prosecution and have turned hostile. Relying upon the statement of the
prosecutrix, it is also contended by the counsel for the applicant that the age
of the prosecutrix is disputed and as per the statements of her parents, she
was above 18 years of age. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Vs. State of NCT of Delhi ,
reported in 2023 (1) SCC 83 ; counsel for the applicant submits that only
DNA cannot form sole basis of conviction and once the material prosecution
witnesses have turned hostile, there is no material available with the
prosecution to continue incarceration of the applicant. Accordingly, counsel
for the applicant prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State opposes the
bail application and submits that as per the documentary material available
on record, the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age on the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12698
3 MCRC-9037-2025
incident. In her statement under Section 183 of BNS, she has stated against
the applicant, the DNA report is positive and therefore, just because the
prosecutrix and her parents have turned hostile, the same cannot form basis
to enlarge the applicant on bail in the given facts and circumstances of the
case.
6. In the case of Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, (2005) 5 SCC 294 , Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed that DNA evidence may have a great significance where there is
supporting evidence, dependent, of course, on the strength of that evidence.
In every case one has to put the DNA evidence in the context of the rest of
the evidence and decide whether taken as a whole it does amount to a prima
facie case.
7. In view of such decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, at this stage
merely because the prosecutrix and her parents have turned hostile. However
looking to the age of the prosecutrix and DNA report on record, no case for
grant of bail is made out.
8. The application is hereby rejected.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
