IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57814 of 2025 ISHWAR NINAMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Krishnapal Singh Khichi, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the State submits that victim has duly been informed about filing of the bail application.

2. This second application has been filed by the applicant under Section

483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.99/2025 registered at Police Station - Shivgarh, District Ratlam(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1) of BNSS, 2023 and Sections 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act. Applicant is in judicial custody since 05.07.2025. His first application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.11.2025, passed in M.Cr.C. No.52783/2025. Thereafter, material prosecution witnesses victim(PW1), her mother (PW2) and her father(PW3) have been examined before the trial Court.

3. Heard the arguments.

4. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and the relevant material on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence under pressure of family members of the victim. It is a case of romantic relationship between two youngsters. Learned counsel referring to the statement of victim(PW1), her mother (PW2) and her father(PW3) recorded before the trial Court submits that they did not support the prosecution. Rather, they exonerated the applicant and stated that the victim was aged around 19 years at the time she left her parental home. There is no allegation of any inducement, enticement, compulsion or force against the applicant. The determination of age of the victim during investigation is doubtful. The final report has been submitted on completion of investigation. The applicant has clean past, with family roots. There is no history of evading process of law. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by the applicant. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the young applicant and his family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, after going through the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant. The applicant is aged 20 years and is a labourer by profession.

7. According to the material available on case diary, applicant aged around 20 years, kidnapped the minor victim aged around 14 years and 06 months and subjected her to penetrative sexual assault. The material prosecution witnesses victim(PW1), her mother (PW2) and her father(PW3) have been examined. Prima facie, the allegation of enticement or compulsion by the applicant is missing in her evidence. The trial would take time to conclude. The contentions advanced by the applicant have prima-facie merit and cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of prosecution and age of victim will be determined after evidence in the trial.

8. As informed, the applicant is aged around 20 years and is dependent on his family and survives on occasional labour work. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of any criminal antecedent, considering the socio-economic status of the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses by the applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue incarceration of the young applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for present application only.

9. Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of the case, in the