BAIL CAN BE GRANTED IN CASES INVOLVING SERIOUS OFFENCES, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE DELAY IN THE PROSECUTRIX'S STATEMENT, THE RECOVERY OF A DIFFERENT CAR FROM THE ACCUSED, AND THE ACCUSED'S CUSTODIAL PERIOD.

ORDER

This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 98 of 2023 registered at Police Station Daboh, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 376, 376 (D), 366 (A), 368 and 392 of IPC, Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. First application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 27.12.2023 passed in MCRC No. 56586 of 2023 before filing of charge-sheet.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Entire prosecution story in respect to present applicant - accused is improbable. Allegedly, preosecutrix got missing on 20.5.2023 and was recovered on 23.6.2023. In her first statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 23.6.2023, she had not made any allegation against the applicant in respect to abduction, however, after a delay of almost one month, her second statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which for the first time, she made allegations against the applicant. According to her statement, applicant - accused abducted her using Bolero car, however, Swift car has been recovered from the applicant - accused. Under these circumstances, entire prosecution story becomes doubtful. It is further argued that applicant is in custody since 29.11.2023. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, there is no requirement of further custodial interrogation of the applicant. Applicant is the permanent resident of District Bhind and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court.

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 him/her;

2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4 ) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused;

5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE AKS