High CourtsSingle Bench

Sonu @ Mahendra S/O Ramvilas vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 4 October 2019 · Citation: (2019) 10 MP CK 0020

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 164, 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 376(2)(H) · Protection Of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 — Section 5(J)(II), 5(L), 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 40215 Of 2019
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

8 paragraphs · 482 words

This first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime No.90/2019 registered at Police Station Garoth, District Mandsaur (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (N) and 376 (2) (H) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 5 (J) (II) / 6 and 5 (L) /6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

The applicant is in custody since 26.03.2019.

As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix, alleged offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (N) and 376 (2) (H) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 5 (J) (II) / 6 and 5 (L) /6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 has been registered against the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a youth aged about 22 years and he has not committed any offence. Although the prosecutrix is a minor girl aged about 16 years and 10 months, however, according to her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, she was having love affair with the applicant, but her parents have settled her marriage with Sardar s/o Ghasilal Banjara and she did not want to marry with him. Therefore, she herself had gone with the applicant. In the aforesaid statement, she has not made any allegation against the applicant regarding abduction or commission of rape. The applicant is in custody since 26.03.2019. The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed. The 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.

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.