Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/46618/2023 of ROHIT RAJAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46618 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ROHIT RAJAK S/O SHRI JUGRAJ RAJAK, AGED ABOUT23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/OVILLAGE SALIWADA POLICE STATION BELKHEDADISATRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI MOHAMMAD RIYAZ - ADVOCATE )
.....APPLICANT
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPOLICE STATION BELKHEDA DISTRICTJABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.VICTIM A
(BY SMT. NUPUR DHAMIJA - PANEL LAWYER )
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed thefollowing:
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 second bail application under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail inrelation to FIR No. 20/2023 dated 18.01.2023, registered at Police StationBelkheda, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for commission of offence under Sections450, 376, 376(2)(d), 376(2)(N), 323, 506 of IPC. Applicant is in detention since19.01.2023.
2. Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after receipt of DNA report videorder dated 19.06.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.15415/2023.
3. As per the prosecution story, on 18.01.2023, present applicant who isbrother-in-law of 37 years old prosecutrix committed rape upon her andthreatened to kill her. FIR was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has notcommitted any offence. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. He is indetention for more than one year. It is further submitted that DNA report hasbeen received and it is uninterpretable. Prosecutrix has already been examined.Applicant has no criminal background. Therefore, it is prayed that applicantmay be released on bail pending the trial.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State hasopposed grant of bail.
6. In this case, prosecutrix has already been examined before the trialCourt. Now there is no possibility of influencing of the prosecution witnessesand tempering with the prosecution evidence. Considering the detention periodof the applicant and DNA report and other facts and circumstances of the case,but without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am inclined to releasethe applicant on bail. Consequently, this second bail application under Section439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf ofapplicant, stands allowed.
7. It is directed that applicant - Rohit Rajak be released on bail on hisfurnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees FiftyThousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial witha condition that he shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumeratedunder Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
8. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in caseo f bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall becomeineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
ak
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGE