The court ruled that the gravity of the charges and the minor status of the prosecutrix are critical factors in denying bail, especially after previous applications were dismissed on merit.

ORDER

This is the third repeat application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C . (483 of BNSS) for grant of regular bail. Earlier two bail applications have been dismissed on merit vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.35340/2024 and order dated 09.02.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.54901/2024.

2. The applicant has been arrested on 04.06.2024 in connection with Crime No.96/2024 registered at Police Station Bhauti , District Shivpuri for offence under Sections 67-A of I.T. Act , 376(3), 342, 294, 323 , 506 of IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act.

3. As per prosecution case, prosecutrix and her family members came to Police Station Bhauti, District Shivpuri and lodged an FIR that the complainant studies in Bhauti by taking a room on rent of landlord Nemichand Prajapati. On 18.03.24, her landlord’s neighbour present applicant called her in the room at around 4:00 pm and there he raped her and thereafter, he said to her that he will give her mobile phone and money to talk to her regularly but she refused to take mobile phone and money, then present applicant threatened her by saying that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, then he would kill her and her family members. She returned back to her village after completing her exams. She told her father about the incident, then her father came with her at Bhauti. Her father narrated the incident to Nemichand. After that Nemichand called present applicant at his home. When Sanju Pandit came to Nemichand’s house at around 5:00 pm in the evening, he started abusing them. Then he caught-hold of her father’s collar and threw him on the ground and also beat him with kicks and fists. Her father sustained several injuries and he wrongfully confined prosecutrix and her father at Nemichand’s house for about one hour. He threatened that if anyone gave any testimony and lodged report in the police then he will kill them. On the basis of aforesaid, present case was registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for applicant contended that after dismissal of earlier bail applications, DNA report was filed which was found negative in respect of present applicant. 8 material prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case. FIR is also belated. Dharmendra along with other co-accused persons murdered the brother of present applicant in the year 2013, therefore, due to previous enmity, the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecutrix is also not vacating the rented house of applicant. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no more custodial interrogation is required. Prosecutrix did not sustain any injury in her internal or external body parts. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Shivpuri, therefore, there is no apprehension of his fleeing away from the court of justice. Hence, he prays that applicant may be released on bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that earlier two bail applications have been dismissed on merit, therefor, there is no material change is the circumstances entitling the applicant to be released on bail. DNA report was available with the trial court in the month of May, 2024. Applicant is a habitual offender because 11 criminal antecedents have been found against him. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

Learned counsel for complainant also opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident and she has categorically deposed against the applicant before the trial court and her statement was well supported by her father PW-3 and other witnesses. Hence, applicant does not deserve benefit of bail.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary along with necessary documents.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that earlier two bail applications of applicant have been dismissed on merits after considerin