IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Ranu Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 17336 of 2022
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Bail - Abduction and Forced Marriage of Minor - The court allowed the bail application of the accused, a lady, considering her lack of criminal past, the fact that she has been in custody since the date of arrest, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested for the offence of abduction, forced marriage of a minor, and confinement.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application, considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is a lady with no criminal past, and has been in custody since the date of arrest.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of criminal past, the period of custody, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial in granting bail, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The application for bail was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to compliance with specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant Ranu Pandey was arrested on 20.03.2022 in connection with Crime No.14/2022 registered at Police Chowki Khaddi, Police Station Rampur Naikin, Distt. Sidhi (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 342, 34 of IPC.
as per the prosecution case, on 05.01.2022 applicant Ranu Pandey and co-accused Punit Pandey abducted the prosecutrix who was minor and took her to Maihar where they forcefully solemnized marriage of prosecutrix with co-accused Punit Pandey. Thereafter, they took her to Rewa where they confined her in a room for two days, thereafter, they took her to Sidhi and kept her in a house, thereafter, applicant Ranu Pandey took her to Village Chamrach where she kept her for three to four days.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. Prosecutrix was major and went with the co-accused Punit Pandey on her own will and falsely implicated the applicant in the crime. applicant is a lady. She has no criminal past. She has been in custody since 20.03.2022 and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant and co-accused Punit Pandey abducted a minor girl. So, she should not be released on bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that applicant is a lady, she has no criminal past, she is in custody since 20.03.2022 and conclusion of the trial will take time, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/trial Court for her 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.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the trial;
3. The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.
C.C. on payment of usual charges.
The court may grant bail considering the lack of criminal past, period of custody, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial, 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 court may grant bail based on the duration of custody and the expected trial duration, without commenting on the merits of the case.
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 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 court may grant bail considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of a criminal past, and the time it would take for the conclusion of the trial.
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.
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.