Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
Dashrath – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 8955/2024
BAIL - RAPE - SECTION 376 IPC - BAIL GRANTED - MATERIAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN FIR AND STATEMENT OF 164 OF CRPC - PROSECUTRIX IS A MAJOR LADY AND THE FIR WAS LODGED DUE TO FAMILY PRESSURE - APPLICANT IN JAIL SINCE 05.02.2024
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested on 05.02.2024 for allegedly committing rape with the prosecutrix. The FIR alleged that the incident occurred on 24.01.2024, while the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 of CrPC stated that the incident occurred on 27.01.2024. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and that the FIR was lodged due to family pressure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were material contradictions between the FIR and the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 of CrPC. The court also noted that the prosecutrix was a major lady and that the FIR was lodged due to family pressure.
Issues: Whether the applicant was falsely implicated in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail as there were material contradictions between the FIR and the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 of CrPC. The court also noted that the prosecutrix was a major lady and that the FIR was lodged due to family pressure.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applicant's bail application and directed that he be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.
ORDER
Heard and perused the case-diary.
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail in connection with FIR / Crime No.56/2024 registered at Police Station - Badanawar, District - Dhar for commission of offence punishable under Section 354, 354(A), 354(D), 376, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code The applicant is in custody since 05.02.2024.
02. The allegation against the present applicant is of committing rape with the prosecutrix.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this case. As per FIR, the incident of rape was happened on 24.01.2024 and as per the statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, the prosecutrix has stated that the said incident was happened on 27.01.2024. There are material contradiction between the FIR and statement of 164 of CrPC. The prosecutrix is a major lady and the FIR was lodged due to family pressure. He is in jail since 05.02.2024. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant may be allowed and he may be enlarged on bail.
04. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State has opposed the prayer.
05. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.
06. It is directed that the applicant be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the concerned Court on the date fixed in this regard. The applicant shall also abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
07. The present order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump or any breach of conditions of this order, the same shall become ineffective.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VD (PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VD
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
