Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/52477/2023 of RAJESH PARIHAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52477 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH PARIHAR S/O SHRI RAMESHWARPARIHAR, AGED 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVERR/O GRAM KARSENA POLICE THANASUBHASHPURA DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI D.R. SHARMA - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI S.N. DUBEY -ADVOCATE)
ANDSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION SUBHASHPURA DISTRICT SHIVPURI(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI RAVI VALLABH TRIPATHI- PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)(SHRI SOORAJ BHAN LODHI - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
This application coming on for 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
Case diary is not available.
2. This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail.
3. Applicant has been arrested on 14.10.2023 in connection with Crime No.170/2023 registered by Police Station Subhashpura, DistrictShivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC.
4 . It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that in fact, theprosecutrix was a consenting and she voluntarily left her house along withan amount of Rs.8,000/- without informing anybody. Admittedly, theprosecutrix is more than 18 years of age and prima facie, no case underPOCSO Act is made out. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long timeand there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecutioncase.
5. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that according to the prosecutrix, she left herhouse without informing anybody along with an amount of Rs.8,000/-which was spent for purchasing articles and when she was coming back,she was given a lift by the applicant on his motorcycle and thereafter, hecommitted rape on her. However, it is fairly conceded that the police hasnot seized any articles which were purchased by the prosecutrix. As perthe police case diary, the school record of the prosecutrix has not beenseized to prove her date of birth, but fairly conceded that in the MLCreport, date of birth has been mentioned as 06.06.2005, whereas theincident took place in the month of October, 2023, i.e, after attaining theage of 18 years.
6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of thecase, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, theapplication is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released onbail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of thecommittal Court/trial Court to appear before the Court on the dates givenby the concerned Court.
7. This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case ofbail jump, it shall become ineffective.
8. In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on18.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regardinggrant of bail be sent to the complainant.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)V. JUDGEAvi