Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3548/2024 of SATISH UIKEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTION THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3548 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SATISH UIKEY S/O LAKHAN UIKEY, AGED ABOUT 24Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/OMAHENDERVADI, POLICE STATION RANIPUR, TEHSILGHODADONGRI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AMIT DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPOLICE STATION CHOPNA DISTRICT BETUL(MADHYA PRADESH)POLICE STATION CHOPNA DISTRICT BETUL(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.VCITIM A S/O NOT MENTION THROUGH POLICESTATION CHOPNA DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
.....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 application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been filedon behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection with FIR/CrimeNo.288/2023 dated 05.09.2023 registered at Police Station Chopna, DistrictBetul (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366-A, 354, 376-D,506 of IPC & Section 3, 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the co-accused Raj @
2
Gajendra Uike committed rape with the minor and the only allegation which hasbeen levelled against the applicant is that he was standing near bike and caughthold hand of aunt (Mausi) of the victim . It is contended by the counsel thatthere is no allegation of commission of rape against the present applicant. Theapplicant is aged about 24 years and suffering incarceration since 06/09/2023and his past antecedents are unblemished. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution. Thus, counselsubmits that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent as well as objector have opposed the prayer while submitting that taking into considering the activerole played by the applicant, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Heard the submissions and perused the case diary.
6. A perusal of the case diary it reflects that the allegation of rape hasbeen levelled against the co-accused Raj @ Gajendra and so far as the presentapplicant is concerned, the only allegation has been levelled against him that hewas standing near bike when the incident was being taken place and had caughthold hand of the aunt of the victim. The applicant is in custody since06.09.2023.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, period ofincarceration of the applicant and the trial would take considerable time toconclude, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to release theapplicant on bail. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of thecase, the application is allowed.
8. It is directed that the applicant-Satish Uikey shall be released on bailon his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees FiftyThousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction o f the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on allsuch dates as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial.
9. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisionsof Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.
Astha
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)JUDGE