High CourtsSingle Bench

Anis vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 22 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 MP CK 0190

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 366, 366, 376(2)(n) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(L), 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.51752 Of 2020
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

21 paragraphs · 391 words

S.K. Awasthi, J

This application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime

No.157/2020, registered at Police Station-Bagdun (Pithampur), District- Dhar, concerning offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC, 1860

and Section 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

As per prosecution story, on 01/05/2020, complainant lodged a missing person report regarding his daughters. On the basis of which FIR has been

registered for the aforesaid offences.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The applicant is

in custody since 29.06.2020. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Both the prosecutrix were examined before the trial court and

according to the statement of the prosecutrix, on their request, the present applicant brought them to Sanawad and he returned back and there after

the co-accused persons Rahul and Dileep met them and they committed rape with them. Therefore, it is a clear cut case that the prosecutrix have not

made any allegation against the present applicant regarding abduction as mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The

conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the

applicant be dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the

merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond

in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty Thousand Only) 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) Cr.P.C.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.