'Incompetent Public Prosecutors, Govt Advocates Being Appointed By State': Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Law Secretary To Take Appropriate Steps

Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal passed the direction in its order on the anticipatory bail application of a rape accused.

“It is a matter of surprise that this Court is facing various difficulties while hearing the matters because incompetent Public Prosecutors/Government Advocates are being appointed by the State Government who are not properly arguing the matters and assisting the Court in helpful manner listed day to day basis,” Justice Agarwal observed.

The complainant lodged a report stating that the prosecutrix had gone to a tailor in Kolaras, but did not return till evening. Despite searching for her, her whereabouts could not be determined, and a missing person report was registered. However, three days later, the prosecutrix was found at the Railway Station in Raipur, Chattisgarh.

Her statement was recorded, in which she alleged that she had been taken by one Sunil Rawat, along with the present applicant Abhishek and co-accused Dinesh, on false pretext of marriage from the bus stand in Kolaras to Jhansi. The applicant and the co-accused then allegedly left them at Jhansi Railway Station, and Sunil Rawat took the prosecutrix to Raipur where he rented a room and allegedly raped her, and later refused to marry her.

The prosecutrix was subsequently sent for a medical examination, which revealed no external or internal injuries on her body, the court noted in the order. 

The applicant contended that he was being falsely implicated in the case, and the only allegation against him was that he went to Jhansi along with the prosecutrix and accused and left them at the railway station.

Justice Agarwal, after considering the facts in the matter, granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount.

Case Title: Abhishek Thathakit Avdhesh Rawat vs State of Madhya Pradesh MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15253 of 2023

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 51