Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
Kana @ Kanhaiyalal – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 61645 of 2022
Decided On : 29-12-2022
Bail - Offence under Section 376 IPC - Applicant granted bail based on delay in filing FIR and nature of allegations
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as he was arrested for offences under Section 376, 376(2)(N), and 506 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant committed rape and threatened the prosecutrix at a bus stand.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the delay in filing the FIR, the age of the prosecutrix, and the nature of allegations. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the court granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail considering the serious nature of the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the delay in filing the FIR, the age of the prosecutrix, and the nature of allegations, leading to the conclusion that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed the applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety.
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 in connection with Crime No.651/2022, registered at Police Station Sitamau District Mandsaur (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 376, 376(2)(N) and 506 of IPC.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.03.2022, when complainant was going to her matrimonial house and waiting for bus at bus stand Khejadia, applicant came there on motorcycle and took the prosecutrix on the pretext that he will drop her at Mandsaur and thereafter committed rape upon her and also threatened her of dire consequences, if she disclose about the same to anyone.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution case itself, FIR was lodged on 02.11.2022 i.e. after about 07 months of the incident and complainant's husband saw the applicant at matrimonial house. Complainant is a major married lady aged about 35 years while applicant is 24 years of age. Thus, applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He is in custody since 03.11.2022. Investigation is complete and chargsheet has been filed. Trial will take time for its conclusion. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.
4. Learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the application and submits that offences alleged against the applicant are of serious nature.
5. Therefore, applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, especially age of the prosecutrix , nature of allegations alleged against him and also considering the fact that FIR was lodged after about 07 months, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
7. 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 trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.
8. This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
C. C. as per rules.
The delay in filing the FIR and the nature of allegations can be considered in granting bail for serious offences.
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.
The delay in lodging the FIR and the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident were crucial factors in the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
The solemnized marriage and cohabitation of the applicant and the prosecutrix were considered as grounds for granting bail.
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 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 decision to grant bail was based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the delayed FIR and the likelihood of a long trial.
The court considered the delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, and the absence of criminal antecedents of the applicant in granting bail ....
The court considered the inordinate delay in filing the FIR, lack of corroboration of rape allegations with medical evidence, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial in granting bail to the accused.
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
