RAHUL SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard with the aid of case diary. This second criminal appeal under Sec. 14-A(2) o f t h e SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed against the order dtd. 5/4/2023 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities Act), District Vidisha in Bail Application No.233/2023, whereby appellant's application for regular bail has been dismissed. The first criminal appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn by order dtd. 27/4/2023 passed in Cr.A. No.5574/2023 with liberty to file afresh after statement of prosecutrix is recorded before the Trial Court or in the week commencing 11/9/2023 whichever is earlier.

(2.) Appellant is in custody since 20/3/2023 in connection with Crime No.91/2023, registered at Police Station Sahar Basoda, District Vidisha (MP) for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 376(2)(n), 506, of IPC and Ss. 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w-i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, appellant and prosecutrix were known to each other for one year. On 14/2/2022, appellant called the prosecutrix to the house of his friend Dinesh Patel, in front of Jai Palace Behlot Baypass; there was no one in his house, there he made the prosecutrix to consume alcohol and forcibly committed rape on her and took her photographs. Thereafter, appellant threatened her to make the photograph viral and forcibly committed rape on her repeatedly.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. He further submits that admittedly, prosecutrix is a major lady. It is apparent from her statement recorded during investigation that she was a consenting party. Her statement has also been recorded during trial and she has not supported the prosecution case. The appellant is in custody since 20/3/2023. His custodial interrogation is not required in the matter and conclusion of trial will take time. Under these circumstances, appellant be enlarged on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection. Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by counsel f o r the appellant, age of prosecutrix and her statements recorded during investigation and so also that during the trial, her statement has been recorded and considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Special Court is hereby set aside.