High CourtsSingle Bench

Bhuralal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 19 December 2025 · Citation: (2025) 12 MP CK 1876

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subodh Abhyankar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 64(2(M), 87, 99, 137(2), 351(3) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5L, 6 · Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act, 2006 — Section 13
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 59285 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

9 paragraphs · 366 words

Subodh Abhyankar, J

1.

This is applicant's first application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) for grant of anticipatory bail, as he/she is apprehending his/her arrest in connection with Crime No.355/2025 registered at Police Station Amjhera, District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under Section 137(2),64(2)(m), 87, 351(3), 99 of the BNS and Section 5L and 6 of the POCSO Act section 13 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006/

2.

Allegations against the applicant is of his involvement in the present case of rape. It is alleged that the applicant happens to be father of the co-accused Govind against whom allegation of rape has been made.

3.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the in case of his arrest, an irreparable injuries shall be occasioned. Hence, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

4.

Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the case diary is not available.

5.

On due consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order it is found that the main allegation is against the co-accused Govind only and also considering the fact that the prosecutrix had also resided with the main accused Govind for a period of two months, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary in the present case.

6.

Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his/her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

7.

The applicant shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He/she shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Certified copy as per rules.