High CourtsSingle Bench

Sonu Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 January 2024 · Citation: (2024) 01 MP CK 0014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunita Yadav, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 323, 376, 376D, 376 (2)(n), 498A, 506 · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 56133 Of 2023
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 · 368 words

Sunita Yadav, J

This is first application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.05 of 2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376-D, 376 (2)(n), 498-A, 323, 120-B, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant-accused argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The marriage of the applicant/accused with the prosecutrix was solemnized on 19.04.2019 and as per allegations of the prosecutrix, for the first time, the offence was committed in the month of October, 2019 and thereafter on 09.10.2022, however, the prosecutrix neither lodged any report nor made any complaint before anyone. There is a delay of almost three years in filing FIR, for which, no plausible explanation has been given. As per inquiry report of SDO(P) dated 04.08.2023, the applicant/accused was not even present on the place of incident. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent. He is permanent resident of District - Bhind. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court; therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection.

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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Authority.

The applicant shall further abide by other conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Certified copy as per rules.