[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalu Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3859
1 MCRC-4927-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 30 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4927 of 2026
LALU KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kushagra Shukla - Advocate for applicant.
Ms Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is first application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the applicant
for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 27.07.2025 in connection with Crime
No.166/2025 registered at Police Station Roan District Bhind for offence
punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(f), 65(2) of BNS and Section 5(m), 5(n),
6 of POCSO Act.
The allegation against the present applicant is that he, being the paternal
cousin (son of the prosecutrix's uncle) of the prosecutrix, committed penetrative
sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, who was aged below 12 years.
Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that
upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has already been filed;
hence, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is further
submitted that the prosecutrix has already been examined, and therefore, there is
no apprehension of the applicant influencing or tampering with the prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3859
2 MCRC-4927-2026
evidence. The medical evidence on record does not corroborate the prosecution
version, as no marks of injury were found on the internal or external organs of the
prosecutrix, and no conclusive medical opinion has been rendered regarding the
commission of rape. It is also submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable
time to conclude, and continued incarceration of the applicant would cause undue
hardship. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial and is ready and
willing to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may
be pleased to enlarge the applicant on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the
bail application and submits that the applicant is facing allegations of commission
of a grave and heinous offence of penetrative sexual assault upon a minor child
below 12 years of age. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, who has already been
examined before the Trial Court, has fully supported the prosecution case and has
given a clear and consistent account of the incident, specifically attributing the act
to the present applicant, who is a close relative and was in a position of trust,
thereby making the offence more reprehensible. Considering the seriousness of the
allegations, it is prayed that present bail application be dismissed.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the
case diary as well as the material available on record, this Court finds that the
applicant is facing prosecution for offences of an extremely serious and heinous
nature, relating to penetrative sexual assault upon a minor child below twelve
years of age. The allegations disclose a grave breach of trust, inasmuch as the
applicant is a close relative of the prosecutrix and was in a position where the
victim could reasonably repose confidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3859
3 MCRC-4927-2026
The prosecutrix has already been examined before the Trial Court and has
categorically supported the prosecution case. She has given a clear, consistent and
specific account of the incident and has attributed the commission of the offence
to the present applicant. At this stage, her testimony inspires prima facie
confidence and carries substantial evidentiary value. Though the charge-sheet has
been filed and custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required, these
factors alone cannot outweigh the gravity of the allegations, the severity of the
punishment prescribed, and the societal interest in dealing sternly with such
offences. The possibility of the applicant, being a close family member,
influencing the witnesses also cannot be completely ruled out.
In view of the above, particularly the heinous nature of offence, tender age
of prosecutrix, breach of trust by a close relative, and prima facie credibility of her
testimony, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of bail. The
application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
