Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/61645/2022 of KANA @ KANHAIYALAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2022
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 61645 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
KANA @ KANHAIYALAL S/O RAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 24YEAR S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O DHATURIYATEHSIL AND P.S. SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VINOD THAKUR, ADVOCATE )
.....PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRUOGH POLICESTATION SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY MS MAMTA SHANDILYA, GOVT. ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for order this day, the court passed the following:
Case diary is available.
ORDER
With consent, heard finally.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bailto the applicant, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.651/2022,registered at Police Station Sitamau District Mandsaur (M.P.) for commissionof offence punishable under Section(s) 376, 376(2)(N) and 506 of IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.03.2022, when complainant wasgoing to her matrimonial house and waiting for bus at bus stand Khejadia,
Page 1 of 2
applicant came there on motorcycle and took the prosecutrix on the pretext thathe will drop her at Mandsaur and thereafter committed rape upon her and alsothreatened her of dire consequences, if she disclose about the same to anyone.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution caseitself, FIR was lodged on 02.11.2022 i.e. after about 07 months of the incidentand complainant's husband saw the applicant at matrimonial house.Complainant is a major married lady aged about 35 years while applicant is 24years of age. Thus, applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He is incustody since 03.11.2022. Investigation is complete and chargsheet has beenfiled. Trial will take time for its conclusion. Hence, prayer is made to enlargethe applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the application andsubmits that offences alleged against the applicant are of serious nature.Therefore, applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by learnedcounsel for the applicant, especially age of the prosecutrix , nature ofallegations alleged against him and also considering the fact that FIR waslodged after about 07 months, this Court is of the view that applicant deservesto be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of thecase, the application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon hisfurnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousandOnly) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of theconcerned Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates asmay be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial. It isfurther directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437
(3) of Cr. P. C.
This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
C. C. as per rules.
sh
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)V. JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…