Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/12837/2016 of ISHWARMAL@ISHWARLAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2016
of 2016 29/12/2016 Shri Anil Ojha, learned Counsel for the
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.
Arguments
M.Cr.C. No. 12837 of 2016
29/12/2016
Shri Anil Ojha, learned Counsel for the applicant—Ishwarmal @ Ishwarlal S/o Chainram.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor forthe non-applicant/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has provided entirecopies of the charge-sheet to the Public Prosecutor, on thebasis of which the matter is heard.
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station –Ratangarah, District – Neemuch in Crime No.08/2016,under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376 (2) (f) (n), 506 (2) of IPCand under Sections 5 (L) (N)/ 6 of The Protection ofChildren From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
According to the prosecution story, the presentapplicant is the real maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. Shewas aged about 17 years and 8 months. She was taken awayby the present applicant to various places. It is alleged thatthe present applicant had physical relationship with theprosecutrix.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted thatin this matter the FIR was registered after 16 days of theincident, no report was lodged for missing person by thefather of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix with her ownconsent had physical relation with the present applicant However, learned Counsel for the State opposed the pp/
application and prays for dismissal of the application.
After going through the case-diary and taking intoconsideration the facts and circumstances of the case,without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of theview that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The applicationfiled under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directedthat applicant shall be released on bail upon his furnishinga personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000- (Rupees FiftyThousand Only) and one surety of the like amount to thesatisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearancein this regard during trial.
He is also directed that on being so released on bail,he would comply with the conditions enumerated underSection 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Vacation Judge