Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/2392/2024 of RAMAVTAR @ RAMOUTAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2392 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAMAVTAR @ RAMOUTAR S/O SHRI KAPTAAN SINGHKUCHBANDIYA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION:PRIVATE R/O SAAJLI PANCHAYAT GIRVAR TEHSILSAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. SHRISHTI KASHYAP - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPOLICE STATION MOTINAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.VICTIM A D/O NOT MENTION NOT MENTION(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. PUSHPANJALI DWIVEDI - 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 second application under Section 439 of the Code of CriminalProcedure 1973 for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant who has beenarrested relating to FIR/Crime No.719/2022 dated 21.07.2022 registered atPolice Station Motinagar, district Sagar, for the offences punishable underSections 363, 366-A, 376, 376(3), 376(2)(i) and 376(D) of IPC and Section 3/4of POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is incustody since 22.07.2022 and the trial will take considerable time to conclude.He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicatedin the case. The applicant is the permanent resident of district and there is nopossibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. He isready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions to beimposed by the Court. Upon these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant bereleased on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application andprayed for its rejection.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
5. This repeat bail application has been argued on the ground thatprosecutrix and her mother did not support the prosecution story and still firstbail application of applicant was dismissed as M.Cr.C. No.29684/2023 and nowthis second bail application has been argued on the ground that applicant wasnot even named in the FIR and DNA report is negative in nature as it relates tothe act of applicant Ramavtar. That report is now available in the case diary andit suggests that DNA profile obtained from the source of prosecutrix did notmatch with the DNA profile of applicant Ramavtar.
6. Having considered the fact that applicant was not named in the FIRnor was he apprehended with the prosecutrix and DNA report is negative asregards to the applicant, this Court finds it fit to release the applicant on bail,therefore, without commenting on merits, this bail application is allowed.
7. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail upon 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 of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on allsuch dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of the trial.
8. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisionsof Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
pnm
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)JUDGE