Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/52890/2018 of JEETAL PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C No.52890/2018 (Jeetlal Prajapati vs. State of
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHM.Cr.C No.52890/2018
(Jeetlal Prajapati vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated 31.12.2018
Shri Dharmendra Shah, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Shaheen Fatima, learned Government Advocate forrespondent-State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. asapplicant Jeetlal Prajapati apprehend his arrest in connection withCrime No.246/2018 registered at Police Station Sarai, DistrictSingrauli for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 344 and 506 of the IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
As per prosecution case on 04/06/2018 co-accused JitendraPrajapati abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor and took her toBaidhan, where he kept her for 20-25 days and assaulted her and alsocommitted rape with her. It is alleged that during that period whenprosecutrix was at Baidhan present applicant also threatened her andhelped the co-accused in committing crime.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant areinnocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. The onlyallegation against the applicant is that when the prosecutrix was atBaidhan, applicant threatened her, but this fact is not mentioned in hercase diary statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 of theCr.P.C. For the first time prosecutrix disclosed this fact on 23/07/2018when her statement was recorded by the learned JMFC under Section164 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is ready to cooperate in theinvestigation and trial, hence prayed for release of the applicants onanticipatory bail.
2THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHM.Cr.C No.52890/2018
On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposed theprayer and submitted that sufficient evidence is available against theapplicant to connect him with the offence in question, so he should notbe released on anticipatory bail.
Considering the overall facts and totality of the circumstancesand as to the fact that the only allegation against the applicant is thathe threatened the prosecutrix when she was at Baidhan, but this fact isnot mentioned in her case diary statement and for the first time on23/07/2018 she disclosed this fact when learned JMFC recorded herstatement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., so without commenting onthe merits of the case the application is allowed and it is directed thatin the event of arrest by the Police in the aforesaid case, the applicantbe released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum ofRs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the likeamount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his regularappearance before the Police during the investigation or before theCourt during trial.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of thefollowing conditions by the applicants :-
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.
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions ofthe bond executed by them;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as thecase may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extendinginducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with thefacts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing suchfacts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to theoffence of which he is accused; THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C No.52890/2018
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments duringthe trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previouspermission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the casemay be.
C.C. as per rules.
loretta
Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 2019.01.04 23:59:07 -08'00'
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
V. Judge