Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3990/2024 of ARJUN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWALON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3990 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ARJUN SINGH S/O SHRI OMKAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE WORKUMARKHAND POLICE STATION SIDDKIGANJ DISTRICTSEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ARPAN SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION SIDDKIGANJ DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI VIVEK LAKHERA - GOVT. ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENT
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 first application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 ofthe Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to F.I.R. No.117/2023 dated17.6.2023 registered at Police Station - Siddkiganj, District Sehore (M.P.) forthe offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of IPC. The applicant is indetention since 11.12.2023.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 16.6.2023, 30 years old prosecutrix'shusband lodged FIR stating that on 15.6.2023 at around 1 P.M. he after havinglunch was returning to his village. When he came back to village he found his wife missing. When he was going towards Savri Bhavrikund side in search ofwife, he found that Arjun was committing rape upon his wife. When he askedArjun why he raped his wife, he fled away. FIR was registered. Afterinvestigation, charge sheet has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has notcommitted any offence. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. Nooffence under Section 376 of IPC is made out as both are major andprosecutrix was consenting party. FIR was lodged not by the victim but bythe husband. It is further submitted that wife in her statement under Section 164of Cr.P.C. has stated about commission of rape by Jeevan and not by the present applicant. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed grant ofbail to the applicant.
5. Having taken into consideration the entirety of allegations and the factthat parties are major and other material available on record, I am of the viewthat a case for grant of bail is made out. Therefore, without expressing anyopinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.Consequently, this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant, standsallowed.
6. It is directed that applicant - Arjun Singh 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 thedates fixed by it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. 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.
mrs. mishra
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGE