Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/51403/2023 of NITESH @ RITESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTAON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51403 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NITESH @ RITESH S/O BHARAT VASUNIYA, AGED 20YEAR S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE LABOR R/OVILLAGE BADGAWA P.S. BHATPACHLANA DISTT.UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI NILESH DAVE - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION BILPANK DIST. RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)(NONE PRESENT FOR THE PROSECUTRIX, THOUGH SERVED)
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
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant ofbail to the applicant/accused, relating to FIR/Crime No.94/2023 dated (notmentioned) registered at Police Station - Bilpank, District Ratlam (M.P.) forcommission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) ofIPC and under Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from SexualOffences Act.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was aged around more than 17 years. On 28.02.2023, the applicantgave false pretext to marry the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the prosecutrix left herhome and went to Gujarat, thereafter Ujjain alongwith the applicant. Both ofthem, lived in Ujjain for 01 month and 22 days. Meanwhile, he committed rapeupon her several times.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has notcommitted the offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It is alsosubmitted that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was more than 18years of age, but her actual date of birth is not mentioned in the scholar register.She was a consenting party for going alongwith applicant and she was also aconsenting party for sexual intercourse. The applicant is in custody since20.04.2023.
4. It is also submitted that prosecutrix (PW-1) has been examined beforethe trial Court and as per false statement, it is clear that she was a consentingparty. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time for its disposal therefore, prayeris made for grant of bail to the applicant.
5. It is further submitted that the applicant is in custody since 19.03.2023.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion oftrial will take sufficient long time for its disposal therefore, prayer is made forgrant of bail to the applicant.
6. On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer andprayed for its rejection.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and after perusal of the casediary so also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and custodyperiod of the applicant, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail hence, theapplication is allowed.
8. It is directed that the applicant - Nilesh @ Ritesh shall be releasedon bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to thesatisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trialCourt on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court duringpendency of the trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with theprovisions of Section 437(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
9. This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump,it shall become ineffective.
10. With the aforesaid, this application is allowed and stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
Shruti
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)JUDGE