Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4654/2024 of SHIVAM GAUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAVON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4654 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHIVAM GAUR S/O SHRI KEDAR GAUD, AGED ABOUT 20YEARS, DR. GAUD WALI GALI GANGARAMKA PURABANMOR DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI SANJAY SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICESTATION THROUGH POLICE STATION MAHILA THANADISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DINESH SAVITA - P.L- FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 1)
(SHRI ABHISHEK MISHRA- ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR THERESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT).
This application coming on for admission hearing this day, the courtpassed 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 the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 ofthe Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 33 of 2023 registered at PoliceStation Mahila Thana, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections376 (2) (n), 384, 506 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is an innocent personand has been falsely implicated. He further argued that applicant is the onlyearning member of his family. He further argued that the entire prosecution story is highly improbable and suspicious as the prosecutrix who is a major womanaged 29 years despite alleged sexual assault made by the applicant on variousplaces and dates has not lodged any report or made any complaint against thepresent applicant. It is further submitted that as per allegation, incident occurredbetween 23/09/2023 to 07/10/2023, however, FIR was lodged on 25/10/2023and no plausible explanation has been put forth by the prosecution in regard todelay in lodging FIR. It is further submitted that the alleged obscene video ofthe prosecutrix made by the applicant has not been recovered from thepossession of the present applicant. The applicant is in custody since21/11/2023 and he has no criminal antecedents. Investigation stands completedby filing of the charge sheet and further custodial interrogation of the applicantmay not be required. The applicant is permanent resident of District Morena.Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of hisabsconsion, if released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail tothe applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bailapplication and prayed for its dismissal.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diaryavailable on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but withoutexpressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it isdirected that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond inthe sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with onesolvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the followingconditions by the applicant:-
1) The applicant will comply with all the terms andconditions of the bond executed by him;
2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, asthe case may be;
3) The applicant will not indulge himself in extendinginducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted withthe facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her fromdisclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, asthe case may be; 4 ) The applicant will not commit any other offence orwill not repeat the offence in future. In case, if he/she isfound involving in the offence of the same nature, this bailorder shall stand cancelled automatically without furtherreference to the Bench.
5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournmentsduring the trial; and
6) The applicant will not leave India without previouspermission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the casemay be.
Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
Durgekar
(SUNITA YADAV)JUDGE