Sanu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sunita Yadav, J

This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to FIR No.268 of 2023 registered at Police Station Shamshabad, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 363, 376(2), 342 of I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act.

His first application for the relief was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.9.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.40969/2023 with liberty to renew the prayer after filing of charge sheet.

The allegation against the applicant is that he committed rape upon the prosecutrix who was minor at the time of incident.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The prosecution story is doubtful because the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 164 and 161 of the Cr.P.C. specifically mentioned that she knew the applicant/accused for a year back from the date of FIR i.e. 1.8.2023 and had sexual relationship on her own violation. She has not made any allegations or lodged any report against the applicant about that physical relationship. The further submission is that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 164 and 161 of the Cr.P.C. on 9.9.2023 and 1.8.2023 has stated that she was with applicant in a room and when some boys came, objected and called the police then she lodged the report. She has not made any allegation of sexual assault at that time when she was caught with applicant in the room. The applicant is in custody since 1.8.2023. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required any more. He is having no criminal antecedent. Trial is likely to take long time to conclude. He is permanent resident of District Vidisha (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence; therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be granted the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its dismissal.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;

2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the offence in future. In case, if he/she is found involving in the offence of same nature, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.

5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6 ) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.