High CourtsSingle Bench

Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 21 October 2020 · Citation: (2020) 10 MP CK 0230

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Kumar Shukla, 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 Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5, 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 35802 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

13 paragraphs · 536 words

Vijay Kumar Shukl, J

On account of prevailing conditions worldwide brought about by the COVID-19 virus, the present application has been heard through video conferencing in order to maintain social distancing. The necessary parties have effectively been represented by their respective counsel via video conferencing.

Heard and perused the record.

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.122/2020 registered at the Police Station Siddhiganj, District Sehore (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is related to the prosecutrix and was known to her. It is further submitted that the age of the prosecutrix is more than 17 years and she was a consenting party and she had gone along with the applicant and stayed with him at various places and she did not raise any alarm at any stage. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 04.08.2020 and, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned State counsel submits that the age of the prosecutrix is more than 17 years and in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she had stated that she did not raise any alarm because she was terrified.

Taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix and the facts of the case, prima-facie, the prosecutrix is a consenting party and her age is also more than 17 years, I am of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the present applicant- Pradeep Kumar, shall be released from the custody upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Further, the applicant shall comply the provisions of Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

The prison authorities are also requested to ensure compliance with the order passed by the Supreme Court IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU - W.P. (C) No.1/2020 and ensure that the applicant is examined by the jail doctor before his release. If the applicant shows symptoms of COVID-19, the doctor shall forthwith direct him to be produced before the appropriate hospital designated for the detection and treatment of COVID-19 patients. If the doctor is of the opinion that the applicant is not affected with the virus, the jail authorities shall ensure his transportation from the jail till his place of residence.

It is further made clear that if it is found that the applicant is involved in any other case during the trial, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without reference to the Court and the Police will be at liberty to arrest the applicant.

A typed copy of this order be forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General and to Shri Shivam Hazari, learned Panel Lawyer, on their respective e-mail address for intimation to the Police Station concerned. The Office is also directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Court below.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

C.c. as per rules.