Bhoora Kirar vs State Of M.P.

The applicant has filed this third bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 02.07.2020, by Police Station- Dharnawda, District Guna, in connection with Crime No.327/2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 354, 323, 506/34 of IPC, Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and Section 67(B) of the Information Technology Act. Earlier bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn by this court.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is suffering confinement since 02.07.2020 on false pretext whereas charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that co-accused Mosam has been granted bail by this Court and Niraj has been granted benefit of bail by the Special Court, Guna, therefore, he seeks parity.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that role of co-accused Mosam is different vis-a-vis role of present applicant. Name of applicant figured in the statement of co-accused and he was instrumental in preparing the video clip of prosecutrix. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of this bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.

It is the case which has two phases, one phase is that co-accused Deepak and Mosam alongwith victim went to a remote place where Deepak showed his feelings by holding the hands of prosecutrix whereas present applicant and other co-accused including Raghuwar, Neeraj and Arvind were those persons who came later on over the spot and tried to take advantage of situation of girl and prepared a video clip of the victim. Therefore, case of present applicant cannot be equated with the case of other co-accused Mosam Dhakad because he was the friend of co-accused Deepak. Mosam and Deepak were known to the victim and all three went to remote area for roaming around. Present applicant has different intentions because he alongwith other co-accused as referred above tried to manhandle the victim and prepared video clip. Therefore, trial court erroneously concluded that role of Neeraj is less grievous vis-a-vis Mosam Dhakad. In fact the role of Neeraj was just like present applicant and their intention, behavior and conduct was filled with lust and sadistic pleasure.

Case of present applicant is not at par with the case of Mosam Dhakad, therefore, submission of the counsel for the applicant to seek parity with the case of Neeraj lacks merit because Neeraj and present applicant were mischievous. Grant of release of co-accused on bail by the trial court on misplaced facts and wrong conclusion cannot come to the benefit of present applicant.

Application sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information.