Ramchandra S/O Madanlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

They are heard. Perused case diary.

This second application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime No.172/2019 registered at Police Station Nalkheda, District Agar Malwa (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (i) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

The applicant is in custody since 09.05.2019.

As per prosecution case, allegations of abduction and rape on a child have been made against the present applicant. Hence, the present case has been registered against him.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a young boy aged about 24 years and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The incident alleged to have taken place on 27.04.2019, however, FIR was lodged on 07.05.2019 with a delay of ten days; and no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecutrix regarding delay in lodging of the FIR. Medical evidence also not supported the prosecution story. Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew his prayer after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix. However, after giving ample opportunity by the trial Court to record statement of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix failed to produce her evidence before the trial Court. Non bailable warrant of arrests were also issued against the prosecutrix and her mother for the purpose of recording their evidence, even then, they did not turn up, which indicates that they are avoiding to given their evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, 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.

From perusal of proceeding dated 16.09.2019 recorded by the trial Court, it appears that sixteen opportunities have already been granted to the prosecutrix for recording her evidence, but she did not appear before the trial Court; and non-bailable warrant of arrests issued against the prosecutrix and her mother received un-served with the report that they are not residing on the given address, therefore, it is clear that conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.

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.