IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 30th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20505 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
HUKUM PATEL S/O KOMAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O LEDHRA NAKA
MOTINAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ASHISH KUMAR KURMI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHY
A PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION MOTINAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
VICTIM
A
D/O
NOT
MENTION R/O
NOT
MENTIONED (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission. this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.386/2024 dated 29.03.2024 registered at Police Station Motinagar, District Sagar for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act as well as Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
2. The counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended by the counsel that the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that the prosecutrix and the applicant were having affair and she came along with the present applicant on her own volition without there being any coercion or threat. It is further contended by the counsel that the applicant is aged about 25 years having no criminal past. It is also contended by the counsel that the present applicant is in custody since 15.04.2024. It is contended by the counsel that previously as well the same prosecutrix had lodged a report against one Nilesh and by the judgment dated 30.08.2022, Nilesh was acquitted and in the said judgment it was concluded by the Court that the prosecution was failed to prove that the same prosecutrix was below the aged of 18 years. Thus, counsel submits that the applicant be released on bail.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are direct allegations against the present applicant, therefore taking into consideration the act of the present applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
4 . Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the case diary.
5. A perusal of the case diary it reflects that the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that the prosecutrix and the applicant were having affair and she came along with the present applicant on her own volition without there being any coercion or threat. The present applicant has no criminal record and he is in custody since 15.04.2024.
6 . Thus taking into consideration all circumstances and facts and looking to the age of the present applicant, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed.
7. It is directed that the applicant-Hukum Patel shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of trial.
8. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
9. C.c. as per rules. (MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp
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.