Sunil Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J

This is first bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Earlier first and second bail application were

dismissed as withdrawn and earlier third application was also dismissed as withdraw with liberty to renew his prayer after six months.

Petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2018 in connection with Crime No.13/2018 registered at P.S.-Udaypura, District-Raisen (M.P.) for the offence

punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, 506/34 of IPC as well as Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

As per prosecution story, on 13.01.2018, prosecutrix, below 16 years, was missing from her house. She was searched but not found. FIR was lodged.

On 18.01.2018, prosecutrix was recovered. It is alleged by the prosecution that present petitioner/accused and co-accused kidnapped her, thereafter

petitioner/accused kept her at village Parasia and committed intercourse with her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner/accused is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. At the time of

incident, prosecutrix was above 18 years. She has been examined by the d o c t o r , h e r secondary sexual charterers are found developed.

Petitioner/accused is also 25 years, both love each other, but parents of prosecutrix were not ready to accept their relation. So, prosecutrix voluntarily

came to the petitioner/accused. Petitioner/accused did not commit any offence. Petitioner/accused is in custody since 06.02.2018. It is time of Covid-

19 due to which conclusion of trial will take time. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. He has no previous

criminal antecedent. Petitioner/accused is breadwinner of his family, if he is kept in custody for unlimited period, then future of his family will be

spoiled. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner/accused.

Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application.

Considering the contentions of counsel for both the parties and the fact that age of prosecutix is disputed, petitioner/accused is in custody since

06.02.2018, he is breadwinner of his family, he has no previous criminal antecedent, it is time of COVID-19 Pandemic, due to which conclusion of trial

will take time, there is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution.

In view of the aforesaid, it would not be appropriate to keep the petitioner/accused in jail during whole trial. Therefore, without commenting on merits

of the case, application of the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.

It is directed that the appellant-Sunil Yadav shall be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Only) with two solvent sureties of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for

his appearance before it on the dates given by the concerned Court.

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

The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

The petitioner will cooperate in the trial;

3 . The petitioner will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which him is accused;

The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the petitioner shall also comply the rules and norms of social distancing.

Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following

direction to the jail authority :-

The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the petitioner by the jail doctor before his release.

2 . The petitioner shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3 . If it is found that the petitioner is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in

appropriate quarantine facility.

Learned counsel for the State is directed to inform the Victim about this order by supplying a copy of this order.

Certified copy as per rules.