High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunil vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 19 October 2020 · Citation: (2020) 10 MP CK 0192

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5, 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 39359 Of 2020
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

11 paragraphs · 441 words

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J

Heard on this first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant.

The applicant is in jail since 02.06.2020 in connection with Crime No.99/2020 registered at Police Station Handiya, District Harda, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) of the IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, the applicant allured the prosecutrix, who was 17 years and three months old at the time of incidence, took her along with him without informing her parents, kept her and repeteadly committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. Meanwhile parents lodged a missing persons report and later on the police recovered the prosecutrix from the possession of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Prosecutrix was 18 years old at the time of incidence. She was consenting party. She went along with the applicant at her own violation, without informing her parents. It is further submitted that the age of prosecutrix is disputed in this case. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, categorically stated that whatever happened with her, happens with her consent, therefore, prays to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposes this bail application and prays for dismissal of this application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As per prosecution, age of prosecutrix at the time of incidence was 17 years and three months. Prosecutrix did not state any forcible act committed by the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Sunil, stands allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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

Jail authorities and State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus, before and after releasing the applicant.

Certified copy as per rules.