High CourtsSingle Bench

Mithun Chidar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 31 October 2022 · Citation: (2022) 10 MP CK 0049

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunita Yadav, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 363, 376(3), 376(2)(n) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4, 5(L), 6 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164, 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 50140 Of 2022
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

18 paragraphs · 505 words

Sunita Yadav, J

The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 28.06.2022 by Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri in Connection with Crime No.431/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(3), 376(2)(n) and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 and 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act.

The allegation against the present applicant is that he abducted the minor prosecutrix and committed rape upon her.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in jail since 28.06.2022. It is further argued that entire prosecution story is doubtful because the prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution, which is evident from her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. She also stated that she got married with the present applicant and they are living as husband and wife. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, further custodial interrogation is not required in the matter. The applicant is permanent resident of Shivpuri, and there is no possibility of his absconsion. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Per contra, application is opposed by learned counsel for the State and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

Having considered the arguments rendered by the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4 ) The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.

5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.