Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4297/2024 of RAJU CHOUHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGHON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4297 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAJU CHOUHAN S/O MADAN CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER SCHOOL TANDA,BLAWADI, TEHSIL WARLA, DISTRICT BARWANI(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ).
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATIONHOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATIONWARLA, DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.VICTIM X THROUGH P.S. WARLA, DIST. BARWANI(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
( SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, GOVT. ADVOCATE ).
.....RESPONDENT
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 bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of applicant relating to Crime No.363/2023registered at Police Station-Warla, District-Badwani, for the offences underSections 376, 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and under Section 4, 5-L, 5(j)(ii), 6 ofthe POCSO Act, under Section 3(2)(v). 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (P.O.A.) He is incustody since 04.11.2023.
2. As per prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that hehas committed rape upon the minor prosecutrix.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocentand has been falsely implicated in this case. The physical relationship isconsensual. The prosecutrix and the applicant resided with each other. In herstatements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has not supported thecase of prosecution. The applicant is in custody since 04.11.2023. Therefore,he prays that the benefit of grant of bail be given to the applicant and enlargedon bail.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer andprayed for its rejection by submitting that the DNA report has yet not beenreceived, hence, bail should not be granted to the applicant.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusalof the case-diary and also considering the fact that the DNA report will taketime, pre detention conviction is not required, without commenting on themerits of the case, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail.Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is allowed.
6. It is directed that applicantbe released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) withone solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for hisregular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that heshall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by itduring trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section437(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case ofbail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
VD
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)JUDGE