High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh Kahar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 MP CK 0052

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 344, 363, 366, 376(2)(n) · Protection�Of�Children�From�Sexual�Offences�Act, 2012 — Section 5, 6, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 45369 Of 2023
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

9 paragraphs · 459 words

Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J

1.

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.108/2023, dated 18.05.2023 registered at Police Station - Shahganj, District- Sehore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 344 and 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Applicant is in detention since 05.06.2023.

2.

As per the prosecution story, on 18.05.2023 prosecutrix's father lodged an FIR about missing of his 17 year and 9 months old daughter, who is a student of Class-XIIth, since 10:00 A.M. of 17.05.2023. FIR was registered for commission of offence under Section 363 of IPC. Prosecutrix was recovered on 01.06.2023 from the house of Neeraj Malviya at Mandideep. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has not committed any offence. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. Prosecutrix has gone with him on her own. They have entered into wedlock. At the time of commission of offence prosecutrix was almost at the verge of completion of 18 years of age and in statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C she has clearly stated that she had entered into relationship with the applicant with her own consent. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may be released on bail.

4 . O n the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

5.

Considering the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and other facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a case in which further pre trial detention of the applicant is not warranted. Consequently, this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant, stands allowed.

6 . It is directed that applicant - Rajesh Kahar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

7 . This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case o f bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.