High CourtsSingle Bench

Prabhu Devda vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 18 February 2020 · Citation: (2020) 02 MP CK 0090

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 — Section 5(J)(2), 5(L), 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6083 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

23 paragraphs · 477 words

This first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime

No.292/2018 registered at Police Station Shivgarh, District Ratlam (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (n) of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 5 (J) (2) and 5 (L) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

The applicant is in custody since 07.12.2019.

As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix regarding abduction, inducement and commission of rape on the

pretext of marriage, the case has been registered against the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a youth aged about 23 years and he has not committed any offence. According to

Ossification Test Report, the age of the prosecutrix is in between 17-19 years. According to statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, she is 18 years of age. She was having love affair with the applicant and she wanted to marry with him, but

her father was not ready for their marriage. Therefore, she herself went with the applicant and solemnized marriage with him and wanted to live with

him only. Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 07.12.2019. The

investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed. There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged

on bail. 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.

Certified copy, as per rules.