Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3914
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J
DHULJI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29926 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Aditya Verma
For the Respondents: Shri K. K. Tiwari
Courts may grant bail when significant delays or lack of allegations against the applicant arise, justifying release conditions.
Headnote:This is an application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding bail in connection with Crime No.661/2024, involving charges under various sections of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The applicant, lodged in jail since 26.12.2024, argues for bail on the grounds of the delayed FIR and lack of allegations against him, stating that the trial will take significant time. The court considers these submissions, noting the prosecutrix's changed statement and the delay in filing the FIR, leading to the inclination to grant bail to the applicant. The application is allowed with conditions for the applicant’s regular appearance during trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filing fir and lack of allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
2. This is the applicant's second application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), as he / she is implicated in connection with Crime No.661/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Rajgarh, District Rajgarh (MP) for offence punishable under Section Section 74, 75, 77, 78, 127(2), 351(3), 64(2)(m) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is lodged in jail since 26.12.2024.
3. His first bail application M.Cr.C.No.6737/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 03.05.2025.
4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that presently the charge sheet has already been filed however, till date the charges have not been Signature Not Verified framed and the applicant is lodged in jail since 26.12.2024. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a period of around two months of the incident and the applicant happens to be the uncle (Phuphaji) of the prosecutrix and she has improved her version in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.; whereas in the FIR she has not alleged the commission of rape by the applicant. It is further submitted that since the final conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
5. Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the case diary is not available.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the charge sheet which is available with the counsel for the applicant and taking note of the fact that the FIR has been filed after a period of around two months of the incident and the prosecutrix is aged about 22 years and she did not raise any allegation against the applicant, this Court finds force in the submissions as advanced by the counsel for the applicant, this Court is inclined to allow the application, looking to the period of incarceration.
7. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he / she shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions Signature Not Verified enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
