[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saroj Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25974
1 MCRC-13886-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13886 of 2026
SAROJ VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Awasthi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Naveen Thakur - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail
relating to FIR/Crime No.247/2025 registered at Police Station Gadhwa,
District Singrauli, for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 65(1),
64(2), 143(4) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.
The applicant is in jail since 18.01.2026.
2. The applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to repeat the application after recording the statement of the
victim vide order dated 13.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.5801/2026.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statement
of the victim has been recorded and in her statement, she has implicated the
present applicant. The basic allegation against the applicant was that she had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25974
2 MCRC-13886-2026
given Rs.300/- to the victim to travel Allahabad/Prayagraj. It is further
submitted that, before the trial Court, the victim has improved her statement,
alleging that the applicant went along with her to Allahabad/Prayagraj,
where three persons met them, and thereafter the applicant, being her cousin
sister, returned to her matrimonial home, leaving the victim in their
company. It is further alleged that the said persons along with three ladies
took the victim and ultimately sold her to the main accused, who committed
sexual assault upon her.
4. On that basis, it is submitted that there are material improvements in
the prosecution story which clearly indicate that the applicant has falsely
been implicated in the case. The victim, in para 10 of her statement, has
clearly admitted that there was a land dispute between her father and the
father of the applicant, due to which, they are not visiting each other. It is
further submitted that the applicant is about to give birth to a child and in
support of the said fact, learned counsel for the applicant has annexed
sonography report and MCP card of the applicant. Trial will take time to be
concluded, hence, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the bail
application and submitted that although the victim had been married by her
father, but she continued to reside with her parents even after the marriage. It
is alleged that when the victim visited the present applicant, who is her
cousin sister, then the applicant instigated her to travel to
Allahabad/Prayagraj and marry the co-accused/main applicant, Neeraj
Sharma, and also provided Rs.300/- to her. On that, the victim went to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25974
3 MCRC-13886-2026
Allahabad/Prayagraj, where the other accused persons met her, took her and
ultimately sold to Neeraj Sharma, hence, no case of bail is made out in
favour of the applicant and application deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard the parties and perused the case diary.
7. From perusal of the case diary, it is clear that the present matter
pertains to illegal trafficking of a woman and the applicant appears to be
connected with those persons involved in the said offence. Considering the
gravity of the allegations and the material available on record, this Court is
not inclined to grant the bail to the applicant, hence, no case of bail is made
out.
8. As regards to the applicant's delivery, it is the duty of jail authorities
to provide proper medication and nursing assistance to the applicant.
9. Thus, this second application filed on behalf of applicant seeking
regular bail stands dismissed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
