High CourtsSingle Bench

Ravi Ahirwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 24 November 2022 · Citation: (2022) 11 MP CK 0083

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354, 363, 366A, 376D, 376(2), 376(3), 506 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4, 5l, 6, 17
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 55393 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

9 paragraphs · 390 words

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J

This first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 14.04.2022 in connection with Crime No.18/2022 registered by Police Station Godan, District Datia for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376D, 376(2), 376(3), 354, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4, 5L/6, 17 of POCSO Act.

It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the prosecutrix and her parents have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case. Even the DNA profile of applicant was not found as per the DNA test report. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution case.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that as per the allegations, a minor girl was raped. However, after going through the deposition sheets of the witnesses, it is conceded that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that it appears that either the witnesses had given a false information to the police or they have not narrated the truth before the Court, therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted.

So far as the question of prosecution of the witnesses is concerned, it is directed that the Trial Court while deciding the trial shall address on this issue also and shall pass a specific order as to whether the prosecution of the witnesses is warranted or not ?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.

This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on 18.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.

Certified copy as per Rules.