High CourtsSingle Bench

Rahul @ Babloo vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 13 February 2020 · Citation: (2020) 02 MP CK 0049

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anand Pathak, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 376(D) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3255 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

43 paragraphs · 367 words

He extended his apology for sending case diary at belated stage because he was busy in taking care of his son who met with an accident.

Apology accepted.

With consent heard finally.

The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who has been arrested and is in custody since 27-11-2019 in

connection with Crime No.605/2018 registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, District Bhind, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376 D of

IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against him and he is suffering confinement since 27-11-

2019. Initially prosecutrix referred the role of applicant in her statements, but the story of prosecution indicates an improbable event. She lived for 15

days with the applicant and went to Ahmedabad without raising any alarm. In fact, she refers the fact of consent in her statement although at this

stage it cannot be a consent as prosecutrix is minor. Charge-sheet has already been filed and without any criminal record, confinement amounts to

pre- trial detention. He undertakes to cooperate in trial and would not be a source of embarrassment/harassment to the complainant party in any

manner. He further undertakes to perform community service. Thus, prayed for bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this application.

Considering the submissions advanced, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the

application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing 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 concerned.

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

1.

2.

/

3.

,

, / ,

;

4.

5.

6.

/ ;

7.

9 1 ,

,

( )

,

/

( )/ , ,

:-

, ,

, -

(

8.

/

/

, 2020,

9.

,

, ,

Certified copy as per rules.