Prolonged pre-trial detention is contrary to liberty, and bail may be warranted if flight risk is low.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 29 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38585 of 2025 RAJABABU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Hemant Singh Rana - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Dinesh Savita - PL for the respondent/State.

Shri Ravi Shankar Gupta - Advocate for the complainant.

ORDER This is first application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail.

2. The applicant is in custody since 26.02.2025 in connection with Crime No.25/2025 registered at Police Station Unnav, District Datia (M.P) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 87 of BNS and Section 3 /4 of POCSO Act .

3. Kidnapping, rape and the offence under the POCSO Act is alleged against the applicant in respect of minor prosecutrix.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that as per ossification test the age of prosecutrix was found as 14 to 17 years. Applicant is under custody Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU since 26.02.2025. Learned counsel taking this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix submits that from the statement before the court it can be said that she was matured enough to understand the events and as such prays for grant of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for grant of bail. However, they do not dispute the aforesaid facts regarding the age found in the ossification test and the statement made before the court below by the prosecutrix.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and looking to the statement of the prosecutrix and the fact that early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty and the material placed on record does not disclose possibility of applicant's fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.

8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a 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/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court.

9. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

i. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU the bond executed by him;

ii. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii. The applicant will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv. 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;

v. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and vi. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

10. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed off.