IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA th ON THE 6 OF JULY, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21976 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

JITENDRA JAISWAL S/O SHRI RAJENDRA JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST 73 BELWA MARIAHU POST BELWA BAZAR DISTRICT JOUNPUR (UTTAR PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI PRATEEK MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE).

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION

1. HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION LASUDIYA DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)

VICTIM X THROUGH P.S. LASUDIYA, DIST.

2.

INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. VINITA DWIVEDI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)

(BY SHRI DEEPAK SAKLE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

They are heard. Perused the case diary /challan papers.

2. This is the first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.1332/2021, registered at Police Station Lasudiya District Indore for offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 of IPC read with Section 9(M/10)

POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution, on 7.10.2021, a complaint was lodged by the complainant to the effect that her husband, the applicant to whom she was married in 2007 and from whom she has a daughter aged about 9 years has been committing obscene sexual acts with her daughter. On 7.10.2021 her daughter informed her that on 22.10.2020 at about 9.00 AM the applicant had caught her and had molested her physically and had threatened her. On the basis of the complaint FIR was registered and investigation was commenced during the course of which the applicant has been implicated and arrested for the present offence.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. In the FIR the allegation levelled by the complainant was as regards wrong doing having been committed upon her youngest daughter. The said incident is said to have occurred one year ago and there is no plausible explanation for delay in making the complaint. Furthermore in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C the daughter herself has not stated anything as regards the acts of the applicant. Though statement of the eldest daughter has been recorded in which she has levelled allegations against the applicant but in the FIR there is no reference of her which is quite unbelievable. In any case the statement of the eldest daughter has been recorded after a period of about six months. There has been matrimonial dispute between the applicant and complainant for a very long time and the present complaint is only as a result of the same. It is further submitted that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed hence further custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. The trial is likely to take time for its conclusion. On such grounds, prayer for grant of bail to the applicant has been made.

5. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant/State as well as learned counsel for the objector submitting that in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. the complainant and the youngest daughter and in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C the complainant and the eldest daughter have levelled specific allegations against the applicant hence he is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary.

7. In the FIR which was lodged by the complainant there was allegation as regards wrong doing having been committed by the applicant upon the youngest daughter. However in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C she has not stated so. Though statement of the eldest daughter has also been recorded in consonance with FIR but in FIR itself there is no reference of her. In any case her statement has been recorded six months after recording