SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Online)(MP) 26

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A. M. Khanwilkar, J
Suresh Bhilala – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Bail Application No. 296/15



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Counsel for the applicant]
For the Respondents:[Counsel for the respondent State]

The court can grant anticipatory bail when allegations are of dubious reliability and the potential for social stigma exists.

Headnote:The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC concerning Crime No. 296/15 for offenses under Sections 376 & 506 of IPC. The applicant contended a false implication and the lack of reliability of the prosecutrix, who denied the incident in her statement. The Court found merit in the submission for anticipatory bail due to the nature of allegations. The Court emphasized that the applicant's rights must be protected from potential social stigma and embarrassment. Resultantly, anticipatory bail was granted, contingent upon specific conditions outlined under the CrPC.

Table of Content
1. anticipatory bail application filed under s.438 of the crpc. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding reliability of evidence and social implications. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's assessment and decision on grant of bail. (Para 4)
4. conditions and final directives upon granting bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

1. By this application filed under S.438 of the CrPC the applicant Suresh Bhilala has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No. 296/15 registered by police station Kukshi, Distt. Dhar for offence under S.376 & S.506 of IPC.

2. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was not very reliable and was the sister - in - law of the present applicant. She has denied the entire incident in the statements recorded before the Court under S.164 of the CrPC and the applicant has full chance of success in the trial. He is likely to face social embarrassment and ostracisation, if arrested, besides the prosecutrix is a major person of 19 year, and Counsel prayed that the application be allowed.

3. Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the applicant, stating that the offence is fully made out. Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the application. He, however, candidly admitted that the prosecutrix has denied the entire incident.

4. On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and it is hereby allowed.

5. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant Suresh shall be released on bail for the period of 30 days (thirty days) upon his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his further appearance as and when directed.

6. The applicant shall apply for regular bail within the aforesaid period of 30 days which shall be dealt by the trial Court in accordance with law.

7. It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under S.438(2) of the CrPC C.c. as per rules.
Application allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top