High CourtsSingle Bench

Munnalal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 20 May 2024 · Citation: (2024) 05 MP CK 0087

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 366, 376(2)(N), 506
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 20788 Of 2024
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

11 paragraphs · 429 words

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J

1.

This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in connection with crime No.51/2024, dated not mentioned, registered at P.S. - Raoti, District - Ratlam for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(N), 506 of IPC.

2.

As per the prosecution case, the date of incident is 29.11.2023 and missing report lodged by her father on 27.01.2024. As per the version of FIR prosecutrix/complainant stated that on 29.11.2023 co-accused Munna called her to meet outside the house. He came from two wheeler and took prosecutrix to village-Chikada, Dist. Chittorgarh and committed rape with her and the police recovered them. Thereafter prosecutrix gave statements under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. alleging the allegation of rape against the present applicant and FIR registered against applicant and other co-accused persons by P.S. Raoti, Dist. Ratlam, MP offence under Section 366, 376(2)(N), 506, 34 of IPC at Crime No.51/2024. Co-accused persons namely Suresh, Gavar, & Kamal have been granted bail by the trial Court.

3.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the missing report was lodged by father on 29.11.2023 and the prosecutrix is said to be recovered on 27.01.2024 after one month and 29 days. As per the prosecution case, she was taken to Rajasthan, but she did not raise any alarm. Apart from that, the applicant was known to her and the report has been lodged alleging that he refused to marry her. The prosecutrix is a major girl.

4.

Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the main allegation of rape is against the present applicant.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the prosecution story and the fact that the prosecutrix had remained with the applicant for period of almost two months and the prosecutrix is a major girl, the investigation is completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

6.

It is directed that applicant Munnalal shall be released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Court below.

7.

A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General, on their email address, for intimation to the Police Station concerned. The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the Ld.

Court below.

8.

With the aforesaid, the application is allowed and disposed off.

Cc as per rules.