IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA th ON THE 5 OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39111 of 2022 Between:-

RAGHUNATH S/O SHRI SHANKARLAL NINAMA BHEEL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MAJDOORI, R/O GRAM JARWASAKHURD THANA NAMLI, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA SHRIVAS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION INDUSTRIAL AREA, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. VICTIME X THROUGH P.S.

INDUSTRIAL AREA, RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI AJAY GUPTA, LEARNED PL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH ADVOCATE GENERAL)

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

O R D E R

This is the second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail. His earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28/06/2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 23212/2022. The applicant is in custody since 11/03/2022 in connection with Crime No.155/2022 registered at Police Station – Industrial Area, District Ratlam (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 5(j-ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

As per prosecution story, minor prosecutrix was going for labour work, at that time, present applicant who is the real maternal uncle (mama) of the prosecutrix committed rape upon her, due to which she became pregnant and has delivered a child. Prosecutrix launched an FIR at Police Station Industrial Area. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. He is in custody since 11/03/2022. Prosecutrix has Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH launched an FIR against one person namely Balaji for commission of rape. During the investigation she discloses the name of the present applicant. Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has been examined before the trial Court and she has turned hostile. She has stated nothing against the present applicant. She categorically stated that one Balaji has committed rape upon her. Applicant is the permanent resident of Ratlam district and final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient long time. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that mother of the prosecutrix herself filed a petition under Section 482 for grant of permission for abortion of the prosecutrix. As per the DNA report, the fetus of the prosecutrix is matched with the present applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also taking note of the fact that Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH prosecutrix (PW-1) categorically admitted in her statement that she has deposed the statement (Ex.-P/3) under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court and has narrated the whole incident before the concerned Magistrate. As per the DNA report, a categorical finding given by the Assistant Chemical Examiner stating that “Hkz.w k ¼izn'kZ&F½] vfHk;kfsD= ¼izn'kZ&D½ rFkk j?kqukFk ¼izn'kZ&E½ dh tSfod larku gSA” Evidence is still continuing in the matter.

In view of the DNA report, without commenting upon the merits of the case, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the pres