Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
Anil – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 61888 of 2022
Decided On : 29-12-2022
Bail - Offence under Sections 363, 376(1) of IPC and section 3/4, of POCSO Act, 2012 - Applicant granted bail without commenting on the merits of the case
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested for the commission of offences under Sections 363, 376(1) of IPC and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, involving the abduction and rape of a minor prosecutrix.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the submissions of both parties, the statement of the prosecutrix, her MLC report, and material produced on record regarding her age. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the court granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant was entitled to bail considering the serious nature of the allegations against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, based on the material presented and overall consideration of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed the applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
JUDGMENT
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 17.11.2022 in connection with Crime No.967/2022, registered at Police Station Dhamnod, District- Dhar (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(1) of IPC and section 3/4, of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 16.11.2022 at about 14:00 to 15:00 hours applicant abducted minor prosecutrix aged about 17 years and 4 months and took her near water tank on his motor cycle and thereafter committed rape upon her. Accordingly, case has been registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. She voluntarily went with the applicant and when her brother saw her along with the applicant she lodged the report against the applicant. He further submits that prosecutrix statement recorded during investigation are inconsistent with her own FIR. FIR is delayed by 7 hours without any reasonable cause. Nothing material has been produced on record with regard to the age of the prosecutrix. The all prosecution case is apparently false. The conclusion of trial will take considerable long time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the bail application and submits that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incidence and the allegations leveled against the applicant is of serious in nature hence he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, statement of the prosecutrix recorded during the investigation, her MLC report and material produced on record with regard to her age and also considering over all material produced on record, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
6. It is directed that the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of the trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
7. This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the material presented and overall consideration of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court considered the evidence relating to the age of the prosecutrix, delayed FIR, and the age of the applicant in granting bail, emphasizing the importance of these factors in bail decisions for....
The solemnized marriage and cohabitation of the applicant and the prosecutrix were considered as grounds for granting bail.
The delay in filing the FIR and the nature of allegations can be considered in granting bail for serious offences.
The age of the prosecutrix, her statements, and the delayed FIR were crucial factors in the Court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
The court may grant bail based on factors such as lack of support from the victim, the age of the victim, and the likelihood of the trial taking time.
The court considered the consent of the prosecutrix and her father, the solemnization of marriage between the applicant and the prosecutrix, and the possibility of delay in the conclusion of the tria....
The court denied bail based on the minor's age and severity of the charges, emphasizing the protection of children under the law.
The court considered the delayed FIR, lack of support from the medical report, and overall material produced on record in granting bail to the applicant without commenting on the merits of the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
