Billa @ Sonu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J

Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.121/2018 registered at Police Station Deori, District Raisen for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376D and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5g and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

The first bail application of the applicants i.e. M.Cr.C. No.43642/2018 has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.01.2019.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.07.2018 at about 12 o'clock in the day time when the prosecutrix, aged about 14 years had gone to the field to attend the call of nature, the applicant no.1 Billa @ Sonu intercepted her and after threatening her that if she had not come with her, he will kill her parents and with the help of applicant no.2 has taken the prosecutrix on motorcycle in an isolated place at Sadrai Road, there they forced her to drink liquor and later on, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, applicant no.1 Billa @ Sonu in the evening of the same day had left the prosecutrix on motorcycle to her house and fled from there. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her parents. They have made some considerations with the Surpanch and lodged the report. On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence. It is further submitted that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR and the medical report is also negative. It is also submitted that the applicants are in judicial custody since 09.07.2018. They are permanent residents of the address shown in the application. There is no chance of their absconding or tampering with the witnesses. They are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed upon them. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is specific allegation against the present applicants. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix was below 14 years at the time of incident. Although medical report is not positive (old ruptured hymen) but looking to the age of the prosecutrix and the circumstances in which the crime is alleged to be committed by the applicants, they does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

This is a second bail application of the applicants the first bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn. Ever since then, there is no change in the circumstances to take a different view. Still with a view to satisfy the judicial mind, once again I have gone through records and the averments made by the learned counsel for the respondent/State. After considering the same, I am of the view that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicants.

Consequently, this second application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants, stand dismissed.