IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR th ON THE 18 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53493 of 2024 SUKHLAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anopam Chouhan advocate for applicant. Shri Vinod Thakur public prosecutor for State.

Shri Kartikey Aurangabadkar advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

ORDER This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 567/2024 registered at Police Station Dhamnod District Dhar (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section (s) 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3/4 and 5L/6 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in judicial custody since 3.11.2024.

As per the case of prosecution, victim aged around 16 years was incised and taken by applicant Sukhlal. Initially, at the information of father of victim, P.S. Dhamnod registered FIR at crime No. 567/2024 for offence punishable under section 137(2) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The victim was recovered from possession of Sukhlal son of Galiya. The victim Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR in her statement recorded under Section 181 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023 alleged that Sukhlal had taken her to Shitalgaon in Gujarat. They stayed in a hut. Thereafter they shifted to another place. Sukhlal had physical relations with her on 3-4 occasions. But in her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, victim stated that she stayed in a hut, but Sukhlal didnot commit any misdeed with her. She desires to live with Sukhlal. On such statement, prosecution for offence punishable under section 87, 64(2)(M) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act was added. The applicant - Sukhlal was arrested on 3.11.2024. He is in custody ever since. On completion of investigation, final report was submitted.

Learned Counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter under the pressure of family members of the victim. It is a case of teenage romance between two adolescents. No offence as alleged is committed by applicant. The victim has informed that she is major. The determination of age during investigation is doubtful. Learned counsel further submits that applicant is aged around 20 years. He is a labourer. There is no likelihood of his absconsion leaving his family, home and profession. No criminal antecedents is reported against the applicant. There is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence by the applicant. The trial would take time to complete. Therefore, applicant may be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR on the ground of gravity of alleged offence.

Learned counsel for the objector/ complainant pleads no objection.

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

Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and overall circumstances of the case and having regard to the young age of the applicant, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the application is allowed.

Accordingly, it is directed that applicant-Sukhlal shall be released on bail in connection with Crime as stated in para-1 of this order, upon furnishing personal bond and surety bond of amount, as may be considered appropriate by the Trial Court/the Committal Court for compliance with conditions, as may be imposed by such Court to secure presence of the applicant for the trial under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 480(3)

of BNSS, 2023.

This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach of any of the preconditions of bail, the concerned Court may consider, on merit, cancellation of bail witho