Bhagwat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.126/2019 registered at Police Station Patera, District Damoh under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case of the prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 3/4.05.2019, when prosecutrix, aged about 23 years was sleeping in a hut which was constructed in her field situated at Village Majhguwa, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Patera, District Damoh, to look after the vegetables grown by her. At about 01:00 am the applicant entered there and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her without her consent. When she made noise, then her sister-in-law (Jethani) Sangeeta and sister Vandana have reached there, who have seen the applicant while he was committing the said act. Later on, the applicant fled away from there and before leaving he threatened the prosecutrix that if she narrated the incidence to anybody then she will be killed. On the date of incidence, the husband of the prosecutrix was out of station. On 06.05.2019 when he returned back, then the prosecutrix accompanying him lodged the FIR against the applicant. On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant and the applicant was taken into custody on 06.05.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix specifically stated in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. that the applicant remained present for one hour at the place of incidence and committed sexual intercourse with her consent. During the course of medical examination of the prosecutrix, no injury was found on her person. It is also submitted that there is a delay in lodging the FIR as the same has been lodged after three days of the incidence. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him. There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. It is also submitted that the applicant is a young youth and has been in custody since 06.05.2019. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the application.

On perusal of the case diary, it seems that the FIR has been lodged after three days of the incident, however, no reasonable explanation has been shown in the delay column of the FIR. It also seems that the applicant is a young youth of 21 years and is in custody since 06.05.2019. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take long time to conclude.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, allegation made against the the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Certified Copy as per rules.