Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vivek Agarwal, J. deciding a second bail application filed by the applicant in connection with Crime under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 506 of IPC and Sections 3,4,5J(ii), 5L POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(II), 3(1)(w)(II), 3(II)(V) of SC/ST Act directed the Trial Court to ask the prosecutrix to refund the compensation amount paid by the State.
The earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an application after prosecutrix was examined and FSL/DNA report was brought on record.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that prosecutrix was examined before the trial court on 23-03-2022 and she had turned hostile, not supporting the prosecution story. It was submitted that the trial will take time to conclude thus the applicant must be enlarged on bail.
The Court allowed the bail application after taking into consideration that the prosecutrix was already examined, she had not supported the prosecution story and applicant was in custody since 03-11-2021. The Court further asked the Trial Court to consider issuing a direction against the prosecutrix to refund the amount received by her because she admitted in her examination in chief that she has lodged false report on account of some oral dispute between the parties.
“Alleged false report is lodged, therefore she is not entitled to keep the amount of compensation paid by the State government collected from the tax payer of the country.”
[Bablesh Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 982, decided on 17-05-2022]
For petitioner: Mr Kamlesh Singh Rajpoot
For respondent: Mr Vivek Lakhera