Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 56073
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI, J
Sunil Kumar Maravi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 16069/2024
Surendra Patel,Advocate General
A repeat bail application must show changed circumstances since the last dismissal; mere filing of a charge-sheet is insufficient for reconsideration.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Bail application - Third bail application dismissed as no change in circumstances since previous dismissal; applicant's claim of innocence and consent contradicted by allegations of forcible kidnapping and sexual assault. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - A repeat application for bail must demonstrate changed circumstances to warrant reconsideration; mere filing of charge-sheet does not constitute a change in circumstances. (Paras 5)
This is third bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.254/2023 dated 07.12.2023 registered at Police Station-Karanjiya District, Dindori for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3,4,5(L), 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that the applicant and prosecutrix were known to each other and they were in love relationship. Therefore, it was a case of consent and the applicant has not committed rape forcibly. It is further submitted that there were contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that after dismissal of the earlier applications, change-sheet has been filed in the matter. The applicant is in custody since 14.1.2024 and trial would take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, the applicant be released on bail. it case for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 . Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the applicant forcibly kidnapped the minor/prosecutrix from her lawful guardianship and thereafter sexually ravished her many a times.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. This is third application filed on behalf of the applicant for bail. First application of the applicant has already been dismissed considering the merit of the case. The counsel for the applicant is unable to point out any change in the circumstances after dismissal of earlier applications on merit except that charge- sheet has been filed in the case. Mere filing of the chage-sheet cannot be said to be a changed circumstance. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain this repeat application.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
