ORDER

I.A. No.21544 of 2023 for assisting the prosecution is allowed for the reasons assigned therein. Learned counsel for the objector is permitted to assist the prosecution.

Heard finally.

This is third bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. His First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.02.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.7952/2022 whereas his second bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 03.09.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.30489 of 2022.

The applicant has been arrested on 01.02.2022 by Police Station Tirodi, District - Balaghat (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.52/2022 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

This repeat application has been filed on the ground that statement of Dr.

Rashmi Waghmare (PW/9) has been recorded before the trial Court and as per the statement, no offence could have been made out against the present applicant and the prosecution story appears to be false and fabricated. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering his bail application. He prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the objector have vehemently opposed the application.

On earlier occasion the second application was considered and rejected on merit by this Court on the ground that there is specific allegation by the victim as she has categorically deposed against the present applicant. Admittedly, she is a minor, which could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant. This Court cannot go into the minute details of the statements of the witnesses and to examine whether they are supporting the prosecution story to certain extent or not and to record a finding on that effect in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2007)11 SCC 195. Under these circusmtances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow the application only on the ground that there is minor contradiction and ommission in the statement of the witness. Hence, the application is hereby rejected.

(VISHAL MISHRA)

JUDGE sj