High CourtsSingle Bench

Arun vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 28 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 MP CK 1322

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(1), 137(2) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 12550 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

9 paragraphs · 463 words

Subodh Abhyankar, J

1.

They are heard. Perused the case diary/challan papers.

2] This is the applicant's second bail application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S./ 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he / she is implicated in connection with Crime No.597/2025 registered at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(1) of the BNS Act and section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in custody since 8/12/2025. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 4/2/2026 passed in MCRC.No.58843/2025, with liberty to renew the prayer after the prosecutrix is examined in the trial court.

3] The allegation against the applicant is of abduction and rape. 4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecutrix has been examined in the trial Court and there are material omissions and contradictions in her statement. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated, which is also substantiated by the FSL report, which is negative, and the MLC report is also negative. It is further submitted that the applicant is lodged in jail since 8/12/2025 and the final conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, hence, it is submitted that the bail application be allowed and applicant be released on bail.

5] Counsel for the respondent / State as also the objector, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer.

6] Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the case diary and the fact that the applicant is lodged in jail since 8/12/2025 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, and that the prosecutrix has already been examined in the trial Court thus, there is no apprehension that the applicant would tamper with the prosecution witnesses, 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 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. It is also directed that if the applicant is found to be involved in violation of any of the terms of this order, an application for cancellation of his bail may be filed before the Trial Court itself, who shall decide the same in accordance with law.

8] M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.