Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Anil Verma, J.
Vijendra Singh Chouhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 44645 of 2022
Decided On : 12-10-2022
Bail Application - Offence under IPC and POCSO Act - The court granted bail to the accused based on the lack of evidence connecting him to the offence, the prolonged trial process, and the fact that the prosecutrix did not initially implicate the accused in her statement.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application in connection with a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The prosecutrix went missing and was later found to have been abducted and raped by the co-accused. The applicant was arrested and claimed innocence, stating that he was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, the prolonged trial process, and the fact that the prosecutrix did not initially implicate the accused in her statement. The court granted bail to the accused on the grounds of the aforementioned factors.
Issues: The issues involved the lack of evidence against the applicant, the prolonged trial process, and the initial non-implication of the accused by the prosecutrix.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, the prolonged trial process, and the fact that the prosecutrix did not initially implicate the accused in her statement.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and a solvent surety, and abiding by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. The bail would stand cancelled automatically if the applicant is found to be involved in any other offence during the trial.
JUDGMENT
1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Crime No. 265/2022 registered at P.S - Tarana, District- Ujjain (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(n), 354, 506, 34 of IPC and sections 5-L, 6, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act.
2. As per prosecution story, on 10/06/2022, complainant Dilip Singh lodged a missing person report at police station - Tarana by stating that his minor daughter/prosecutrix is missing from home since 09/06/2022. She left the home by informing that she is going to Bank, but she did not come back. During investigation, it was gathered that co-accused Sanjay abducted the prosecutrix and took her with him at Makshi on motorcycle and kept her in a room and committed rape upon her. Present applicant outraged her modesty and both of them threatened her that they will kill her family members. Thereafter, co-accused Sanjay took her with him at Morvi, Gujrat and repeatedly committed rape upon her.
3. Accordingly, the aforementioned offence was registered and he was arrested.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. There is no legal evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the aforementioned offence. Present applicant is not the main accused, who has committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix did not disclose anything against present applicant in her earlier two statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.. Applicant is in custody since 23/06/2022 He is permanent resident of District- Ujjain. There is no apprehension of his fleeing away from the court of justice. Final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time.
5. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.
6. Per-contra, learned PL for respondent - State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection Perused the impugned order of the trial Court, the statements of the witnesses as well as the case dairy by stating that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C that present applicant outraged her modesty and therefore, he does not deserve for bail.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the fact that the prosecutrix in her first statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C, which was recorded soon afterh recovery of the prosecutrix, did not speak anything against present applicant, but later on, she disclosed the name of the prosecutrix, but the present applicant is not the main accused, who has committed rape upon her; he is in custody since 23/06/2022 investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and possibility of delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be ruled out, in view of the evidence available on record, I deem it proper to release the accused/applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court, as and when required.
9. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C., It is made clear that if the applicant is again found to be involved in any other offence during the trial, this order shall stand cancelled automatically without reference to the Court and the police will be at liberty to arrest the applicant in the present case also. This order shal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of lack of evidence, prolonged trial process, and the initial non-implication of the accused by the prosecutrix in granting bail ....
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 considered the minor status of the prosecutrix and her voluntary actions in denying bail to the applicant.
The court may grant bail based on the nature of the allegation, the role of the accused, the absence of a criminal past, and the expected duration of the trial process.
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 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 has the discretion to grant bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion 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 court considered the lack of support from the victim and her mother, the prolonged detention of the accused, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial as grounds for granting bail.
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
