High CourtsSingle Bench

Akhilesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 September 2025 · Citation: (2025) 09 MP CK 1132

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subodh Abhyankar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 64(2)(M), 137(2) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(L), 6
RESULT
Allowed/ Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 40518 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 404 words

Subodh Abhyankar, J

1] They are heard and perused the case diary.

2] This is the applicant's first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as he is implicated in connection with Crime No.161/2024 registered at Police Station Narayangarh District- Mandsaur (MP) for offence punishable under Section 137(2),64(2)(M) of BNS and section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in custody since 24.11.2024.

3] The allegation against the applicant is of abduction and rape.

4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that admittedly the prosecutrix resided with the applicant for around a period of four months and that both of them had left their village for Rajkot, Gujarat where they resided for a period of ten days and thereafter they went to Jalawar Rajasthan and there also they resided for some time and from there they went to Kota and they resided for ten days.

5] Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the prosecurix has been examined and there are material omissions and contradictions in her statement and her age is also disputed. It is further submitted that the applicant is lodged in jail since 24.11.2024 and the conclusion of trial will take suifficiently long time.Thus, it is prayed that the application be allowed. 5] Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that according to the case of the prosecution, her age was 17 years.

6] On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the case-diary and taking note of the fact that the prosecutrix has already been examined and there is no apprehension of the applicant in interfering in the recording of the evidence, this Court is inclined to allow the present application.

7] Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he / she shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

8] Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.