High CourtsSingle Bench

Kamal Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 MP CK 0151

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366A, 376(2)(n), 376(3) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(L), 5(j)(ii), 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.40924 Of 2021
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

24 paragraphs · 439 words

Rajendra Kumar Verma, J

This is the first bail application filed by applicant Kamal Singh under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. who is in custody since 11.10.2020 in connection with

Crime No.246/2020 registered at Police Station Pandhana, District Khandwa (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3),

376(2)(n) of I.P.C. and Sections 5(L)/6 and 5(j)(ii)/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012.

As per prosecution case, the allegation against the present applicant is that he has seduced the prosecutrix who was minor at the time of incident and

committed sexual intercourse with her.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 11.10.2020.

It is further submitted that on 26th July 2021, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix and her father and they have not supported the case of the

prosecution and turned hostile. No case for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of

P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012 is made out against the present applicant because on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was major and she has admitted this

fact in her statement. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Khandwa and there is no likelihood of his absconding and tampering with the

prosecution case. On these grounds, prayer is made to release the applicant on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer on the other hand has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the material available on record including the case diary, without commenting

on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. Consequently, the application is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with

one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may

be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial.

It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become

ineffective.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the concerned jail authorities are directed to follow the directions/guideline issued by

the Government with regard to 'COVID-19' before releasing the applicant.

C.C. as per rules.