High CourtsSingle Bench

Rakesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 2 March 2020 · Citation: (2020) 03 MP CK 0001

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 109, 120(B), 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(I) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4, 5(L), 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 8152 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

24 paragraphs · 488 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.247/2014 registered at Police Station Avantipur Badodiya, District Shajapur (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 376

(2) (I)/109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 and Section 5-L read with Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

The applicant is in custody since 07.01.2020.

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 innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime. There is no

allegation against the applicant that he committed rape with the prosecutrix; and the said allegation has been made by the prosecutrix against co-

accused Suresh s/o Sundarlal Khati. The only allegation against the applicant is that he took the prosecutrix and co-accused Suresh on his motorcycle

and after dropping them at Dewas, he returned back. At that time, the applicant was not aware with the fact that co-accused Suresh was taking the

prosecutrix with wrong intention. Under these circumstances, at the most offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC will be made out against the

applicant. The applicant is in custody since 07.01.2020. 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.