Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/1802/2024 of NIKHIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGHON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1802 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NIKHIL S/O ANIL KATIYA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O84 BAPU GANDHI NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI TUSHAR SODANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION LASUDIA DIST.INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATEGENERAL.
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is first application filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of regularbail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to FIRNo.824/2023 dated (not mentioned), registered at Police Station-Lasudiya,District-Indore M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A,376, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under Section 5(L)/6 of POCSOAct. The applicant is in custody since 25.06.2023.
2. As per prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that hehas committed rape upon the prosecutrix.
3 . Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted thatthe prosecutrix has not made any allegations against the applicant in herstatements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custodysince 25.06.2023 i.e. more than 4 months. Final conclusion of the trial is likelyto take sufficient long time, therefore, it is prayed that the application be allowedand the applicants be released on bail.
4. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed theprayer and prays for its rejection.
5. Having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of thecase, custody period of the applicant and statements of the prosecutrix, I aminclined to release the applicant on bail. Consequently, without commentinganything on the merits of the case, bail application under Section 439 of theCode of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, stands allowed.
6. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing apersonal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) withone solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for hisregular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that heshall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by itduring trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section437(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case ofbail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall becomeineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)JUDGE