HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Mahipal @ Pratap – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 23222/2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC, Section 5-L/6 of POCSO Act - The court granted bail to the applicant after considering the statement of the prosecutrix that she did not make any allegation against the applicant, and the applicant's prolonged incarceration, despite the DNA report being positive.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a second application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for regular bail, relating to an FIR registered for offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5-L/6 of the POCSO Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the applicant after considering the statement of the prosecutrix that she did not make any allegation against the applicant, and the applicant's prolonged incarceration, despite the DNA report being positive.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the statement of the prosecutrix that she did not make any allegation against the applicant, and the applicant's prolonged incarceration, despite the DNA report being positive, in granting bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed that the applicant be released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount.
ORDER
This is second application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, relating to FIR/Crime No.59/2023 dated (not mentioned) registered at P.S. Kakanwani, Dist. Jhabua (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and section 5-L/6 of POCSO Act.
2. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive after the statement of the prosecutrix.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded in the Court and she has not made any allegation against the present appellant.
4. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the prosecutrix is minor and the DNA report is positive.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the statement of the prosecutrix that in the Court statement, she has not made any allegation against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 20.03.2023 and the trial may take time, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
6. It is directed that Applicant- Mahipal @ Pratap shall be released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.
7. A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General, on their email address, for intimation to the Police Station concerned. The office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the court below.
C.c. as per rules. (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE soumya
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.