Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4436/2024 of BRIJENDRA SINGH ALIAS BOBY BHADORIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAVON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4436 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BRIJENDRA SINGH ALIAS BOBY BHADORIA S/O SRIBHUPENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB D-7 220 KB MPEB COLONYMAHALGAUN DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGEPOLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATIONMADHOGANJ DISTRICT GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.PROSECUTRIX THROUGH POLICE STATIONMADHOGANJ DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( MS. KALPANA PARMAR- P.L.- APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATEGENERAL).
This application coming on for admission hearing 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 u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail hasbeen filed by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection withCrime No. 271 of 2023 registered at Police Station Madhoganj, District Gwalior(M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 (A), 376 (2) (n), 34of IPC and section 5/6 of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused argued that the applicant isinnocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact thatprosecutrix left her house on her own volition as she wanted to get marry withthe co-accused Navin, however, her mother was not agreed for the same. Shelived with co-accused at Sonipal (Haryana) and Delhi for almost six months ashusband and wife. However, she was recovered by the police and her statementunder section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15/01/2024, in which, she hasnot made any allegation against the present applicant. It is further argued thatsince the present applicant helped the parents of the prosecutrix to recover her,therefore, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded on 17/01/2024 undersection 164 of Cr.P.C. had made allegation against the present applicant inregard to the alleged incident which took place in the year 2022. There is noexplanation as to why she did not make any complaint against the presentapplicant in regard to the said alleged incident took place in the year 2022. Theapplicant has no criminal antecedents. Applicant is permanent resident ofDistrict Gwalior (M.P.). Further submission is that the applicant is ready andwilling to co-operate in the investigation and shall abide by all the terms andconditions as may be imposed by this Court; therefore, he prays for grant ofanticipatory bail to the applicant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bailapplication and prays for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diaryavailable on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materialavailable on record, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, theapplicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)with two local solvent sureties inthe like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/InvestigatingAuthority.
The applicant shall further abide by other conditions enumerated underSection 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified copy as per rules.
Durgekar
(SUNITA YADAV)JUDGE