Vishal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The appellant has preferred this appeal (second) under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (as amended by Act of 2015) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, feeling aggrieved by order dated 11.09.2019

passed by learned Special Judge (under SC / ST Act), Jhabua (MP) in Special ST / Bail Application No.205/2019, whereby the prayer for grant of

regular bail has been declined.

Appellant has been arrested on 10.06.2019 in connection with Crime No.422/2018 registered at Police Station Mandleshwar, District Khargone (MP)

for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376 - C and 376 (2) (N) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Section 3 / 4, 5-L / 6 and 5 (J) (ii)

/ 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and also under Sections 3 (2) (v) and 3 (1) (w) (i) of the Scheduled Caste &

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As per prosecution case, on the basis of allegations made by the prosecutrix (who belongs to SC / ST Category) regarding abduction, criminal

intimidation and rape on the pretext of marriage, the present case has been registered against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a youth aged about 21 years and he has not committed any offence. Earlier

appeal of the appellant for grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.8238/2019 granting liberty to renew his prayer after recording court statement of the prosecutrix. Now the prosecutrix has been examined before

the trial Court on 26.11.2019; and she accepted in her examination-in-chief that at the time of incident she was major aged about 20 years and she had

gone with the appellant on her own accord and remained in his company for a considerable period and the appellant also made physical relationship

with her on her own consent. In the aforesaid statement, she has not made any allegation against the appellant regarding abduction or commission of

rape. The mother of the prosecutrix has alos not supported the prosecution story. In these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the

appellant. The appellant is in custody since 10.06.2019. There is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail.

Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the

appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellant on

bail; hence the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion

on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the criminal appeal filed by the appellant may be accepted. Consequently, setting aside the impugned

order, the appeal is hereby allowed. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail upon execution of 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 learned trial Court for his / her regular presence during

trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.

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

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1859/2020 stands disposed of.

C. c. as per rules.