SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Babu Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2018

1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No.5837/2018
(Babu Kha v. State of M.P.)

Indore dtd. 23.03.2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-
applicant/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is fourth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
For grant of bail.
Applicant – Babu Kha is implicated in connection with
Crime No.19/2017 registered at Police Station -Satwas, District
– Dewas(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)
(b), 376(2) (j) and 506 of IPC. He is in custody since
19/01/2017.
According to the prosecution story, the present applicant
was head Master in a school where the prosecutrix aged about
22 years old, was working as guest teacher, had been
compelling her to have physical relationship with him otherwise
he would remove her from the job. From the date of incident,
the prosecutrix stayed in the school as she was pressed to stay
by the present applicant after the school was closed. Between
04:40 to 05:00 pm, it is alleged that he came to the room where
the prosecutrix was sitting, closed the door from inside, and
thereafter, he committed rape on her. The prosecutrix went
back her home and narrated the whole story to his father. On
the next day, report was made at about 04:00 pm.
The first application of the applicant was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 3/04/2017 in M.Cr.C.
No.2273/2017. Thereafter, his second application was
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No.5837/2018
(Babu Kha v. State of M.P.)

dismissed on merit vide order dated 13/04/2017, passed in
M.Cr.C. No.3714/2017. Relevant part of the order dated
13/04/2017 reads as under :-
I have gone through the case diary and in my view,
there is no reason at this stage to presume consent on part
of the prosecutrix. She was only 22 years of age while
present applicant is 52 years of age, there was no reason
to give her consent for such a relationship. The present
applicant was also in a situation to compel her to have
physical relationship with him as he was in position to take
away her job. In such a situation, looking to the peculiar
relationship of the accused and prosecutrix, there appears
to be no ground for grant of bail to the present applicant.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

After recording the court statement of the
prosecutrix(PW1) on 13/10/2017 and 8/11/2017, third repeat
application was filed by the applicant vide M.Cr.C.
No.17047/2017.
As per record of the M.Cr.C. No.17047/2017
miscellaneous criminal case, the applicant has filed three
photographs, whats-app messages and complete Court
statement of prosecutrix. This Court after appreciating the
aforesaid and court statement of Prosecutrix(PW1) dismissed
the application by passing the following order on 13.11.2017 in
M.Cr.C. No.17047/2017 which reads as under :-
Indore, dated 13.11.2017
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the
complainant/objector.

Case diary is available.

Arguments heard.

1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No.5837/2018
(Babu Kha v. State of M.P.)

This is third application filed by the applicant
under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. His
second application was dismissed on merit in
M.Cr.C.No.3714/2017 vide order dated 13.04.2017.

The present applicant was arrested by Police
Station-Satwas District-Dewas, in Crime No.19/2017
for offence under Sections 376(2)(b), 376(2)(j) and 506
of IPC.

This repeat application is filed on the ground
that the prosecutrix have been examined and now
there appears to be no reason to keep the present
appellant under custody.

According to the prosecution story, the present
applicant is a headmaster in a school where the
prosecutrix aged about 22 years old, was working as
guest teacher, had been compelling her to have
physical relationship with him otherwise he would
remove her from the job. From the date of incident, the
prosecutrix stayed in the school as she was
pressed to stay by the present applicant after the
school was closed. Between 04:40 to 05:00 pm, it is
alleged that he came to the room where the prosecutrix
was sitting, closed the door from inside, and thereafter,
he committed rape on her. The prosecutrix went back
her home and narrated the whole story to his father.
On next day, report was made at about 04:00 pm.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in
her statement in paragraphs 55-59 she admitted her
relationship with the present applicant and therefore
bail application of the present applicant should be
considered.

Learned counsel for the State as well as
objector opposed the application.

After going through the statement of the
prosecutrix, there appears to be no ground to grant bail
to the present applicant, as she has on material facts
supported the prosecution witnesses and after her
statement there is no change in circumstances.

As such, this application is dismissed.

This fourth application has been filed by the applicant on
6/02/2018 almost on the same ground. During the course of
arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my
attention to the photographs and complete set of the court
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No.5837/2018
(Babu Kha v. State of M.P.)

statement of prosecutrix(PW1) which was recorded on
13/10/2017 and 8/11/2017 and submitted that there are
material contradictions in her statement and prays for grant of
bail.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the
State opposed the prayer. He submitted that the complete
statement of the prosecutrix along with photographs and whats-
app messages was considered on 13/11/2017 while deciding
the third application on merit, there is no change in the
circumstances to consider this repeat application for grant of
bail. He also submitted that the applicant suppressed the
material facts and prays for rejection of the repeat bail
application.

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
that after complete statement of the prosecutrix, photographs
and whats-app messages were not part of the third bail
application, but as per record of M.Cr.C. No.17047/2017, the
above mentioned documents are available on record.

Considering the aforesaid, so also the fact that third
application of the applicant was filed on the basis of complete
statement of the prosecutrix, there is no change in the
circumstance to consider this fourth repeat bail application.

M.Cr.C. No.5837/2018 filed by the applicant has no merit
and is accordingly dismissed.

(P.K. Jaiswal)
Judge
pn

Preetha Nair
2018.03.26 11:25:52 +05’30’
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No.5837/2018
(Babu Kha v. State of M.P.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation