Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Nayak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13908
1 MCRC-4699-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4699 of 2025
SONU NAYAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Malgani - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Anil Upadhyaya - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is third application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to
FIR No.511/2023, dated 12.12.2023 registered at Police Station Sohagpur,
District Shahdol (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections
363, 342, 376(3) of IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Sections 3,
181, 130, 177(3) Motor Vehicle Act. Applicant is in detention since
19.12.2023.
2. Applicant's first and second bail applications were dismissed as
withdrawn and not pressed vide orders dated 03.04.2024 and 14.08.2024
passed in M.Cr.C Nos. 8608/2024 and 26413/2024 respectively.
3. As per the prosecution story, on 12.12.2023, 14 years old
prosecutrix had gone to give half yearly examination in Kanya Higher
Secondary School, Sohagpur. After taking her paper when she was going
back to her home on foot, on the way, Sonu Nayak who is his brother Nitin's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13908
2 MCRC-4699-2025
friend met and asked that he will drop her at home and asked to sit on the
Motorcycle. Sonu Nayak took her in his room at Patel Nagar and gave some
chocolate to eat and thereafter forcibly laid her on earth and committed rape
upon her. She became unconscious. When she regained consciousness she
found herself lying behind Chintu Dairy, some passers-by lifted her and then
she made a call to her parents, being scared of the incident, she did not narrat
the incident to them then and there, but on the next day she narrated the
entire story to parents and FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet
has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has
not committed any offence. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It
is further contended that in the case in hand blood sample was sent for DNA
profile after 6 days of the incident, whereas as per the memo issued by the
Police Headquarter that is required to be sent within 6 days. Learned counsel
has also relied on the case of Rahul Vs. State of Delhi Ministry of Home
Affairs and another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926 , in which it is stated that mere
exhibiting of the document with regard to DNA profile is not sufficient and
its contents are required to be proved. Reliance is also placed on the case of
Ismail Vs. State of Karnataka, order dated 19th January, 2024 wherein
referring Maharashtra Police Manual. It is observed that the DNA sample
should be sent without any delay and the integrity of exhibits and control
samples must be safeguarded from the moment of seizure upto the
completion of examination in the laboratory. It is submitted that in the case
in hand sample has not been sent within three days, therefore, no reliance can
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13908
3 MCRC-4699-2025
be placed on DNA report. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may be
released on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and has submitted that FIR has been
lodged only after one day and sample was taken on 14.12.2023 itself and
thereafter it was sent for Forensic Examination. Therefore, when trial is still
undergoing there are no plausible reasons to suspect the genuineness of the
DNA sampling and DNA report.
6. Considering the specific allegations made by the 14 years old
prosecutrix and the fact that the DNA report is positive and even in the
evidence before the trial Court the prosecutrix has categorically supported
the prosecution case. I am of the view that no case for grant of bail is made
out. As far as case of Rahul (supra) and Ismail (supra) are concerned they are
the judgments passed in appeal whereas in the case in hand, trial is still
pending. Therefore, aforesaid case laws have no application in the facts and
scenario of the present case.
7. Consequently, this third bail application filed on behalf of the
applicant, having taken into consideration the gravity of the offence and
direct evidence including scientific evidence, I am of the view that no case
for grant of bail is made out.
8. Accordingly, this third bail application filed on behalf of the
applicant is dismissed.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13908
4 MCRC-4699-2025
Vin**
