Mukesh & Anr vs State Of M.P

G.S.Ahluwalia, J

This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for grant of bail.

The applicants are in jail from 13/03/2021 and 10/03/2021 in connection with Crime No.244/2021, registered at Police Station Tetra, District Morena for the offence under Sections 376, 376-D, 506 and 34 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants are closely related to each other and it is not expected that they would commit rape on the prosecutrix who is the wife of the younger brother of the applicant No.1. In fact the prosecutrix is in habit of making false allegations and thereafter entering into compromise. It is further submitted that an enquiry was conducted by SDO(P), Sabalgarh, District Morena on the complaint made by the applicants and in that enquiry the statements of the witnesses were recorded, which clearly indicates that the proseuctrix is in habit of making false allegations.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the statements on which the applicants have placed reliance are not the part of the charge-sheet. Further this Court in the case of Deepak @ Preetam Verma and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. by order dated 11/09/2018 passed in MCRC No.12592/2018 has held that a parallel enquiry is not permissible even in the exercise power under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that at present there are specific and direct allegations against the applicants and there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix. The blood samples of the applicants are also sent for DNA profiling.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Court in the case of Deepak @ Preetam Verma (supra) has held that parallel enquiry during the pendency of investigation is not permissible.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar @ Panki Vs. State of Punjab and another by order dated 18/03/2021 passed in CRM-M-16013-2020 has held that parallel enquiry is not permissible and the suspects have no right to make a representation to the Senior Officer.

In view of the allegations made against the applicants, coupled with the fact that the blood samples of the applicants have already been sent for DNA profiling, no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.