SHIVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC, the applicants Shiva and Raghu have moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in Criminal Case No. 261/13 registered by Police Station, Petlawad, Distt. Jhabua for offence under Sections 342, 366, 450, 376(gha), 506 of the IPC and Section 25-B of the Arms Act. Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that although this was second application moved on behalf of the applicants, the case was one of false implication and there had been a cross-case filed by the accused against the complainant party and in fact, the complainants had also raped woman belonging to the family of the accused and hence the dispute had arisen. In fact, the complainant-Mukesh was relative of the accused persons and both of them were married and having children. Counsel vehemently urged the fact that the offence would not be made out against these applicants since the offence of rape has been alleged only against the other co-accused. Moreover Shantibai (P.W. 1), Nanibai (P.W. 2), Savita (P.W. 3), Bhagawati (P.W. 4) and Angurwala (P.W. 5) had also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. So also Counsel urged that a compromise had been worked out between the parties and in the cross-ease the complainant party have already been granted bail. Counsel prayed that the application be allowed. More so, since in the other case filed, the accused/complainants have already been enlarged on bail.

(2.) Counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and submitted that these facts were available before the Trial Court. The Trial Court has candidly observed that it was a case of gang rape and the way in which the offence is said to have been committed is not conducive to sympathy and the eye-witness account and the evidence of the prosecutrix was also reliable. Considering the effect that it would have on the society, the application has been rightly rejected. Counsel prayed that the application be dismissed.

(3.) On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants. The allegations and the offence involved are very grave in nature and as already observed by the learned Judge of the Lower Court; it is a crime against society. Moreover, I find that it would be proper to place reliance on Shimbhu and another Vs. State of Haryana [In the Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, I Criminal Appeal Nos. 1278-1279 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) Nos. 1011-1012 of 2012], whereby the Apex Court has held thus:--