Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/6176/2020 of NADIM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
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.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHCr.A. No.6176/2020
(Nadim Qureshi Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated: 31/12/2020
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V.K. Nagpal, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for thecomplainant/objector.
Heard through video conferencing on the question of grantof bail.
This is an appeal made by the appellant under Section14(A)(2) of SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of bail.
The appellant is facing trial for offence under Section 376,376(2)(F), 506 and 294 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of theSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered with Police StationKishanganj, Mhow, District Indore, in Crime No.632/2020.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits thatthe appellant has been falsely implicated as the incident hadallegedly taken place on 11/09/2020 whereas the FIR has beenlodged on 25/10/2020 after a delay of almost 40 days. He furthersubmits that the appellant is resident of Arab and he had come toIndia on 05/09/2020 and had reached Mhow on 06/09/2020 andwas tested COVID positive on 07/09/2020 and quarantined for aperiod of 14 days whereas the allegation against the applicant isthat he had committed the alleged offence on 11/09/2020. Hefurther submits that the medical evidence does not corroboratethe allegation of rape and that the appellant is in custody since25/10/2020 and he is no longer required for the purpose ofinvestigation.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal forgrant of bail and has referred to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the objector has also opposed theappeal and has submitted that the appellant had come fromMadina and if granted bail there is every likelihood of flying awayof the appellant.
On perusal of the case diary, having regard to thecircumstances which are pointed out by counsel for the partiesand also taking note of submission of counsel for the appellant, Ifind prima facie force in the submissions made by the counsel forappellant. Hence I am of the considered view that the appeal forgrant of bail deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
The appellant is directed to be released on bail on hisfurnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. FiftyThousand) with two local sureties in the like amount to thesatisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance as and whendirected. It is further directed that the appellant will surrender thepassport before the trail Court and will not leave the countrywithout the permission of the trial Court.
The appellant will attend each hearing of his trial before theTrial Court out of which this bail arises. Any default in attendancein Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by thisCourt.
The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
krjoshi
(Prakash Shrivastava) Vacation Judge
Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI Date: 2020.12.31 17:34:36 +05'30'