High CourtsSingle Bench

Salim Khan vs State Of MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 1 October 2021 · Citation: (2021) 10 MP CK 0038

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S. Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 341, 354, 354(?), 354(?), 354(?), 384, 392, 506 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 9, 10, 11, 12 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 67(b) · Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 — Section 11, 13
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.49259 Of 2021
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

7 paragraphs · 261 words

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

This second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. The first bail application was dismissed by order dated 29.06.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.27935/2021.

The applicant has been arrested on 18.05.2021 in connection with Crime No.362/2021 registered at Police Station Bahodapur Distt. Gwalior for offence under Sections 341, 354, 354 (ख), 354 (घ ) 384, 506, 34, 354 (क), 392 of IPC and Sections 9, 10, 11, 12 of POCSO Act and Section 67 (b) of IT Act and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant, that it is true that the earlier bail application of applicant was rejected on merits by order dated 29.06.2021 but the applicant is in jail for last more than four and a half months. The applicant is aged about 55 years and he has been falsely implicated. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is possibility of his absconding or tempering with prosecution case.

According to the prosecution, on 15.06.2020, the prosecutrix as well as her friend were compelled to disrobe themselves and a video was also prepared. Apart from touching and kissing the prosecutrix, it is further submitted that applicant and co-accused had also threatened them to pay money.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for grant of bail.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to revive the prayer after undergoing some reasonable period of detention.