High CourtsSingle Bench

Akhtar Khan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 15 January 2026 · Citation: (2026) 01 MP CK 1760

HON’BLE JUDGES
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 64(2)(M), 137(2), 351(3) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5L, 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1929 Of 2026
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

15 paragraphs · 546 words

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

1.

This is the the second application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the applicant for grant of bail. He has been arrested on 10.10.2025 in connection with Crime No.101/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Section 137(2), 64(2)(M), 351(3) of BNS read with Sections 5L/6 of POCSO Act.

Kidnapping, rape and the offence under the POCSO Act is alleged against the applicant in respect of prosecutrix, who is stated to be under 18 years of age.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that his earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2025 with liberty renew his prayer after the Court's statements of the prosecturix and now, the prosecutrix and her father have been examined before the trial Court and they had not supported the case of the prosecution and had turned hostile. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.10.2025. Conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Gwalior, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection looking to the nature and gravity of offence.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before it on the dates given by the concerned Court, subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1.

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2.

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3.

The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4.

The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically, without further reference to the Bench;

5.

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6.

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.