Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4401/2024 of SURESH SAKHWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAVON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4401 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SURESH SAKHWAR S/O SHRI HUKUM SAKHWAR, AGEDABOUT 30 YEARS, GRAM BADFARA THANA ANDTEHSIL AMBAH DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(MR. DINESH SINGH TOMAR - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT)
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGEPOLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATIONAMBAH DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.ABHIYOKTRI THROUGH POLICE STATIONAMBAH, MORENA MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. GIRRAJ SONI - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATEAND MR. MANVARDHAN SINGH TOMAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTNO. 2 - PROSECUTRIX)
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 the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of theCr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to Crime No.08 of 2024 registered at PoliceStation Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 376 and506 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocentand has been falsely implicated. Entire prosecution story is highly improbable as allegedly, the incident occurred on 23.12.2023 in the school building in theafternoon, however, there is no evidence that prosecutrix raised any alarm at thetime of incident. It is further argued that prosecutrix has not made complaint toanyone or filed the FIR until 06.1.2024 and no plausible explanation has beengiven in this regard. In the FIR and statement recorded under Section 161Cr.P.C., allegations in respect to making any obscene video has not beenlevelled by the prosecutrix. Further argument is that prosecutrix is a major ladyand at the most, this is a case of consensual relationship. Learned counsel forthe applicant is in custody since 06.1.2024. Applicant is the permanent residentof District Morena (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion ortampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, he prays for grant of bail tothe applicant.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State as well aslearned counsel for the prosecutrix vehemently opposed the bail application andprayed for its dismissal.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diaryavailable on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but withoutexpressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it isdirected that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond inthe sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent suretyin the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the followingconditions by the applicant:-
1) The applicant will comply with all the terms andconditions of the bond executed by him;
2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, asthe case may be;the case may be;
3) The applicant will not indulge himself in extendinginducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted withthe facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her fromdisclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, asthe case may be;
4) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to theoffence of which he is accused;
5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournmentsduring the trial; and
6) The applicant will not leave India without previouspermission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the casemay be.permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the casemay be.
Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information andnecessary action.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance,
if possible, by the office of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
AKS
(SUNITA YADAV)JUDGE