IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK ON THE 3^rd OF NOVEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47408 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

RAJU SINGH S/O SHRI MULU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE GUDHE KA PURA, TEHSIL PORSA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI ANAND PUROHIT - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION MAHUA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT ( SHRI KULDEEP SINGH – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND SHRI YOGENDRA BHARADWAJ – ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

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

ORDER

With consent heard finally.

The applicant has filed this bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 26.04.2020 by Police Station Mahua, District Morena in connection with Crime No.42/2020 registered for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(d)(j) of IPC and Section 5(k)5j(ii) of POCSO Act.

It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that applicant is suffering confinement since 26.04.2020 and two material prosecution witnesses have been examined but since prosecutrix is allegedly deaf and dumb therefore, her deposition is yet to take place. Initially, one Interpreter was appointed but that Interpreter rescinded from her commitments and thereafter, search for new Interpreter was undertaken but District Administration / Police have not yet earmarked any Interpreter who may interpret the language of prosecutrix. FIR is also delayed by two months.

Learned counsel for the applicant further informs this Court that DNA sample of applicant was also taken alongwith other co-accused (total 6 in number) but report indicates that sample of applicant was not matched with the fetus which was recovered by police. Therefore, DNA report stood negative, not only against the present applicant but against all accused persons. Therefore, a legitimate apprehension appears in the case is that who is the real culprit and whether police and complainant tried to hide the identity of real culprit and implicated the present applicant and other accused as scapegoat. He placed the order dated 20.09.2022 passed in MCRC No.42237/2022 (Ajay @ Dolly Vs. State of M.P.) and seeks parity. Learned counsel for the applicant also raised doubt that some relative in close proximity might have been the accused in the case. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. He undertakes to cooperate in investigation / trial and would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant party in any manner and shall not move in their vicinity. Thus, he prayed for bail.

Counsel for the State opposed the prayer however, fairly submitted that although DNA report return negative but suitable steps shall be taken for early conclusion of deposition of prosecutrix by appointing any suitable Interpreter.

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of application.

Counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary.

This is the case where applicant is suffering confinement for more than two and half years as pretrial detention. Since, the allegations were gruesome and heinous therefore, repeated bail applications were rejected. After requisition of DNA report which also took almost 6 months, it was found that DNA report stood negative qua all accused persons. Still for deposition of prosecutrix, bail was denied to the applicant. Now it appears that trial is delayed too much at the cost of personal liberty of accused and District Administration / Police have not taken any sincere endeavor to appoint any Interpreter in the matter. Therefore, this Court without commenting on the merits of the case, allow this application but with certain stringent conditions. It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail, on her furn