High CourtsSingle Bench

Mukesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 19 May 2022 · Citation: (2022) 05 MP CK 0072

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunita Yadav, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 7, 8 · Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va), 14(?)(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No.4467 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

14 paragraphs · 487 words

Sunita Yadav, J

The present first appeal u/S.14(क)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assails the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Distt. Guna whereby application preferred by the appellant herein u/S.439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

The appellant has been arrested on 04/05/2022 by Police Station Cantt. Guna, in connection with Crime No.112/2022 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss.354 of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

As per prosecutor story, on 12/02/2022, the prosecutrix alongwith her mother namely Kantibai lodged a report at Police Station Cantt. District, Guna to the effect that on 10/02/2022 at about 10:15 p.m. when she went outside to answer the call of nature, at that time, present appellant/accused came and caught hold her with bad intention. When the prosecutrix screamed for help, at that time, her parent arrived at the spot of incident. The accused, on seeing the parent of the prosecutrix, fled away from the spot.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. The trial will take its own time and appellant is ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed to grant bail to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, prayed for dismissal of the appeal by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

In view of the aforesaid and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and it is hereby directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his regular appearance before the Court concerned on the date fixed by the Court.

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

1.

The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2.

The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3.

The appellant 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 appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5.

The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6.

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