Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/772/2024 of PINTU BAIGA 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 JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTION THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 772 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
PINTU BAIGA S/O SHRI MILAN BAIGA, AGED ABOUT 22Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGEDEVGAVAN P.S. BHALUMADA TEHSIL KOTMADISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SHAILENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION BHALUMADA DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. ARTI DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE AND MS. RENU TIWARI -OBJECTOR)
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 filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection with FIR/CrimeNo.304/2023 dated 04.08.2023 registered at Police Station Bhalumada, DistrictAnuppur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366-A, 376(1),506 of IPC & Section 3, 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant as well as prosecutrix are known to each other and the prosecutrix was aged about 17years and 10 month at the time of alleged commission of offence. It is contended by the counsel the applicant is aged about 22 years and sufferingincarceration since 05/08/2023 and his past antecedents are unblemished. Thereis no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of theprosecution. Thus, counsel submits that the applicant deserves to be enlargedon bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent as well as objector haveopposed the prayer while submitting that taking into considering the seriousallegations against 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 applicant and prosecutrixare known to each other. The prosecutrix was aged about 17 years and 10months at the time of alleged offence. The applicant is in custody since05.08.2023.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, period ofincarceration of the applicant and the fact that the prosecutrix was aged about17 years and 10 months when the alleged offence was committed and that trialwould take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the considered viewthat it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, without expressingany view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
8. It is directed that the applicant-Pintu Baiga shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfactiono 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 provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.
Astha
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)JUDGE