High CourtsSingle Bench

Jai Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 January 2020 · Citation: (2020) 01 MP CK 0030

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376, 506 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 251 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

7 paragraphs · 443 words

They are heard. Perused case diary.

This first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime No.169/2019 registered at Police Station Rampura, Manasa, District Neemuch (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix, alleged offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 has been registered against the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime. The applicant is in custody since 09.08.2019. The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed. The prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court on 19.12.2019 in which she accepted that she was having love affair with the applicant; and she herself had gone to meet with the applicant. In the aforesaid statement, she has not made any allegation against the applicant regarding commission of rape. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. There is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the bail application by contending that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail; hence he prayed for rejection of the application.

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 upon 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 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) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

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