IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV th ON THE 10 OF MAY, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19187 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

NEETESH JOSHI S/O SHRI VEERENDRA JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR SHANIDEV MANDIR KE PASS TARAGANJ LASHKAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (SHRI ARVIND SINGH CHAUHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE THANA KARERA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI P. TANWAR - P.L.- APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL).

(SHRI OM PRAKASH MATHUR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [COMP].

This application coming on for admission hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The applicant has filed this First application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri in connection with crime No. 184/2022 registered for the offence Signature Nopt Vuenriisfiehdable under Section 363 added section 366, 376 (2) (n), 344 of IPC and Signed by: SANJAY Signing time: 10-s0e5-c20t2io3n 5/6 of POCSO Act.

Allegations against the applicant/accused, in short, are that the applicant abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated. He further argued that applicant is the only earning member of his family. He further argued that as per prosecution story, the prosecutrix was 17 years of age at the time of incident, however, as per ossification test report, her age was shown to be between 17 to 19 years. The prosecutrix in her statement has mentioned her age as 19 years. The prosecutrix has clearly stated in her statement that she fell in love with the present applicant / accused and wanted to marry with him,therefore, she left her parental home on her own volition and thereafter, she married with the present applicant and started living with him as husband and wife. They had also gone to Mumbai and worked in a hotel. The applicant is in custody since 13/04/2023. Investigation is nearing completion and further custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required. The applicant is permanent resident of District Gwalior. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

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

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is Signature Not Verified directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in Signed by: SANJAY

05:28:20 PM the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one local 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 any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.

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 Cou