High CourtsSingle Bench

Krishna vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 January 2020 · Citation: (2020) 01 MP CK 0024

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 323, 363, 366A, 376(3), 506 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 — Section 5, 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 123 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 · 424 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.214/2019 registered at Police Station Manpur, District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 376 (3), 323, 506, 366-A and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 5 read with Section 6 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 376 (3), 323, 506, 366-A and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 5 read with Section 6 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 is a young boy aged about 20 years and he has not committed any offence. The applicant is in custody since 17.07.2019. The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed. The prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court on 07.11.2019 and she has not stated anything against the applicant and turns hostile. The parents of the prosecutrix have also not supported the prosecution story. Therefore, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. 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.