MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)
S.K. Awasthi, J.
Yogesh - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. & Ors. - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 37751 of 2020
Decided On : 09-10-2020
Bail - Criminal Law - The court allowed the bail application of the applicant who was implicated in a case involving offences under Sections 366, 363, 376(3) of IPC, 1860 and Section 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court directed the release of the applicant on bail with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was implicated in a case involving serious offences. The prosecutrix turned hostile during the trial, and the parents did not support the prosecution story. The applicant sought bail, citing innocence and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application, considering the circumstances and arguments presented by both parties. The court directed the release of the applicant on bail with specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail despite the serious nature of the offences and the ongoing trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of evidence against the applicant, including the hostile testimony of the prosecutrix and lack of support from the parents. The court also took into account the potential delay in the conclusion of the trial.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
S K Awasthi, J. - Heard, Case-diary perused.
2. This repeat (third) application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime No.425/2019 registered at Police Station-Mandleshwar, District-Khargone, for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 366, 363, 376(3) of IPC, 1860 and Section 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. As per prosecution story, complainant filed a report at Police Station Mandleshwar alleging that on 19/11/2019 at about 6.00 pm the victim and her mother were going towards their home. When they reached near bus stand, the applicant came on a motorcycle and drove away the victim in front of the complainant and wife of her brother-in-law. On the basis of which FIR was registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime. He is in custody since 24/11/2019. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19/02/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.6098/2020 by granting liberty to the applicant to renew his prayer after recording the Court statement of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court on 22/09/2020, wherein she has not stated anything against the applicant and turned hostile. Parents of the prosecutrix have also not supported the prosecution story. In these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 /-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he/she shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
8. Certified copy as per rules.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.