Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 61628 of 2022
Decided On : 29-12-2022
Bail - Offences under Section 376, 450 and 506 of IPC - The court granted bail to the applicant considering the delayed FIR, overall material produced on record, and without commenting on the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, arrested for offences under Section 376, 450 and 506 of IPC, filed for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution alleged that the applicant committed rape and threatened the complainant, while the applicant claimed false implication due to a property dispute and lack of support from the medical report.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the delayed FIR and overall material produced on record, granted bail to the applicant without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delayed FIR, the nature of the alleged offences, and the credibility of the prosecution story.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the delayed FIR, lack of support from the medical report, and the overall material produced on record, without delving into the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant 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 in connection with Crime No.518/2022, registered at Police Station Amjhera District Dhar (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 376, 450 and 506 of IPC.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that applicant is the son of complainant's brother-in-law(jeth). On 21.09.2022, at about 11:00 p.m., he entered into the house of the complainant and 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 FIR is delayed by 03 days without any reasonable cause. As per prosecution case itself, complainant's son aged about 16 years was present in her house at the time of incident, but complainant neither raised any alarm nor told about the incident to anyone. The whole prosecution story apparently appears to be unnatural. Moreso, there is a property dispute between the applicant and complainant's husband. Medical report does not support the prosecution c as e. Thus, applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He is in custody since 24.09.2022. 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. Therefore, applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, especially with regard to delayed FIR and also considering overall material produced on record, 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.
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 trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.
7. This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
C. C. as per rules.
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 filing the FIR and the nature of allegations can be considered in granting bail for serious offences.
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 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 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 solemnized marriage and cohabitation of the applicant and the prosecutrix were considered as grounds for granting bail.
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 established that significant delays in filing an FIR, when unexplained, can be a critical factor in granting bail, especially in cases where the trial is expected to be prolonged.
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
