Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
Mukesh S/o Bhagirath Mehar – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4731 of 2022
Decided On : 28-01-2022
Bail - Serious Offences - Delay in FIR - Applicant Enlarged on Bail
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, as he was arrested in connection with serious offences including rape and blackmail. The prosecution alleged that the applicant blackmailed and threatened the prosecutrix and committed rape, subsequently viral the photos and video recordings. The delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident were considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, allowed the bail application, considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident.
Issues: Delay in FIR, Seriousness of Offences, Applicant's Eligibility for Bail
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and a solvent surety.
JUDGMENT
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 26/10/2021 in connection with Crime No.484/2021, registered at Police Station - Bhanpura, District Mandsaur (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 67(a) of the Information Technology act, 2000.
Prosecution story in brief is that, the applicant blackmailed and threatened the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her repeatedly. Thereafter, viral the photos and video recordings. accordingly, case has been registered against him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and complainant both were major at the time of incident. They were having relations with each other. FIR is delayed by about 02 years without any reasonable cause. Photos and videos said to be made viral were seized from the mobile phone of the prosecutrix. No case is made out against the applicant. He is in custody since 26/10/2021. Trial will take long time for its conclusion. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for respondent/State has opposed the application as the offences alleged against the applicant are serious in nature.
Learned counsel for the complainant has not opposed the application.
Having considered the rival submissions, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that prosecutrix was major at the time of incident, 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 bail application is allowed.
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.
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.
This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
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 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 filing the FIR and the nature of allegations can be considered in granting bail for serious offences.
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 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 solemnized marriage and cohabitation of the applicant and the prosecutrix were considered as grounds for granting bail.
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 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 has the discretion to grant bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case.
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
