Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4408/2024 of DEEPAK 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. 4408 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DEEPAK S/O PARMANAND, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL. KHUNDA, P.S.DHARAMPURI, DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH PUROHIT, ADVOCATE).
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION MAHESHWARDISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI SAMEER VERMA PL FOR THE STATE).
.....RESPONDENTS
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 bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of applicant relating to Crime No.189/2023registered at Police Station-Maheshwar, District-Khargone, for the offencesunder Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and under Section 5l/6of thePOCSO Act. He is in custody since 29.11.2023.
2. As per prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that he has committed rape upon the minor prosecutrix.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix herself called the applicant. She and the applicant resided with each other. She has becomepregnant. The physical relationship was consensual. In her statement recordedunder Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has not supported the case of prosecution. The applicant is in custody since 29.11.2023. Therefore, he prays that thebenefit of grant of bail be given to the applicant and enlarged on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer andprayed for its rejection by submitting that the prosecutrix is a minor girl.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the case-diary and custody period of the applicant, without commenting onthe merits of the case, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail.Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is allowed.
6. It is directed that applicantbe released on bail on his furnishing a personal 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