High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramesh Chandra Bairagi And Others vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 18 January 2022 · Citation: (2022) 01 MP CK 0095

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 322, 366, 376(2)(n), 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.62540 Of 2021, 2415 Of 2022
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

27 paragraphs · 484 words

Rajendra Kumar Verma, J

These are the first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicants, who are implicated in connection with

Crime No.310/2021, registered at Police Station â€" Rajgarh, District - Dhar, concerning offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 366, 323 and 506 of IPC.

The applicants are in jail since 01.12.2021.

As per the prosecution, the allegations against the applicant Vijay are that he has abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her without her

consent and the allegations against the applicant is that he has assaulted on the husband of the prosecutrix. Hence, the police has registered the crime

against the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated. Both the applicants are father and son.

The FIR was delayed by four and half months. The prosecutrix is a married lady and she was a consenting party and was living with the applicant for

three months. Applicant Ramesh Chandra was not named in the FIR at the time of lodging FIR. The prosecutrix was in contact with the applicant

Vijay and chatting with him on whatsap even after the incident period allegedly mentioned by the prosecution. The charge-sheet has been filed.

Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Under these circumstances, prayer was made for grant of bail to the applicants.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicants on bail. She further submits that the prosecutrix

has supported the case of the prosecution in her statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on the

merits of the case, the application filed by applicants are allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond

in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, with a condition

that they shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of

Cr.P.C.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become

ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the concerned jail authorities are directed to follow the directions/guidelines issued by

the Government with regard to 'COVID-19' before releasing the applicants.

It is also stipulated that on being registration of any type of case under any provision, against the the applicants, this order shall stands cancelled

without further reference to this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.