Yashoda @ Komal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

They are heard. Perused case diary / challan papers.

This first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime No.516/2019 registered at Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376 (d), 368 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix regarding abduction and commission of rape, the case has been registered against the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present crime. The allegation against the applicant is that she is a neighbour of the prosecutrix and she suggested the prosecutrix that if you will go to Indore, then I will take care of her better than others. Then on the behest of the applicant, the prosecutrix reached near Rajwada (Indore). But the applicant did not come to Rajwada at Indore and switched off her mobile phone. Thereafter, one auto driver met the prosecutrix and she was taken to house of one Alisha, where on third day co-accused persons namely Aftaab, Zafran and Ashu committed rape on her. But, there is no allegation against the applicant that she abducted the prosecutrix or she was in her company at any point of time. The Police has not collected the evidence that the applicant was in contact with the co-accused person (s) on the date of the incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant instigated co-accused persons to commit sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. She was also not present on the place of occurrence. Thus, there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the present crime. The applicant is in custody since 22.10.2019. The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed. There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail. 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.