BALLU YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second repeat application filed by the applicant under Sec. 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to Crime No.262 of 2023 registered at Police Station Umri, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Ss. 363, 366, 366-A, 376, 376-D, 342 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 3/4 and 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. His first bail application (M.Cr.C. No.57576 of 2023) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd. 3/1/2024 with liberty to revive the prayer after recording of statement of the prosecutrix or after expiry of three months whichever is earlier.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent a n d has been falsely implicated which is evident from the fact that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded at different fora changed and improvised her version. It is further submitted that the FIR was registerd on 30/9/2023 when prosecutrix got missing. She was recovered on 3/10/2023 and in her first statement after recovery on 3/10/2023 she made no allegation about the sexual assault by the accused/applicant, however, in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. on 4/10/2023 she made allegation against all the accused persons about the sexual assault. However, in her court statement, she entirely changed her story and stated that co-accused Uttam was not involved in the crime. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix in her court statement at para 3 stated that two different persons i.e. Pavan and Bhole dragged her forcibly in the car, however, Pawan and Bhole are one and the same person. Under these circumstances, entire prosecution story becomes doubtful. Applicant is in custody since 6/10/2023 and since charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required any more. Even the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded, therefore, question of influencing the prosecutrix does not arise. Further submission is that the applicant is the permanent resident of District Bhind (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence; hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, vehemently opposed the present bail application and prayed for its dismissal.