IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
Ankit Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8403 of 2022
Decided On : 16-02-2022
Bail - Offence under IPC and POCSO Act - Enlargement on bail granted without commenting on merits of the case
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant committed rape upon her multiple times over the years.
Finding of the Court:
The Court, considering the delayed FIR and other facts and circumstances, granted bail to the applicant without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail despite the serious nature of the charges against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the delayed FIR, the nature of the charges, and the likelihood of a long trial.
Final Decision: The applicant was directed to be released on bail with specific conditions and instructions for compliance with COVID-19 guidelines.
JUDGMENT
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - This is first bail application filed by the applicant - ankit Patel S/o Rambarose Patel under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.411/2021 registered at Police-Station - Sanwer, District - Indore (MP) for the offence punishable under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(2)(K), 201, 506, 342, 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 3, 4, 5L/6 of POCSO act, 2012 and the applicant is in custody since 24.08.2021.
Prosecution story in short is that applicant resides opposite to prosecutrix's house. In the year 2015, when prosecutrix was minor, applicant entered in her house, threatened her and committed rape upon her. after that applicant again threatened and committed rape upon her 5-6 times till 21.08.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a major girl aged about nineteen years of age. She lodged the report after six years of incident. It is alleged against the applicant that he had informed about his relation with the prosecutrix to her fiance, due to which she consumed some poisonous substance but her fiance has not stated so in his statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC. The applicant is in custody since 24.08.2021 and the conclusion of trial would take considerably long time. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State has opposed the application.
Having considered the rival submissions as also the delayed FIR and other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Committal Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court/Committal Court with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. The applicant shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19)' the concerned jail authority is directed to follow the directions / guidelines issued by the Government with regard to COVID-19 before releasing the applicant.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8403 of 2022 stands allowed and is disposed of in above terms.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
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 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 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 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 delay in filing the FIR and the nature of allegations can be considered in granting bail for serious offences.
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 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 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 ....
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.