IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2534 of 2026 RAVI PARDI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shivendra Pandey advocate for the applicant.

Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia public prosecutor for State.

ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the State informs that notice to victim has duly been served.

2. This second application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 362 of 2020 registered at Police Station- Talen, District Rajgadh (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 368, 366, 366-A, 344, 376, 376(2)(n), 376AB, 376(2)(h), 376(3) of IPC and Section 5l, 5m, 5q, 5j(ii), 6, 7, 8, 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. Applicant is in judicial custody since 15.02.2025. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the prayer after examination of victim and her parents vide order dated 21.8.2025 passed in MCRC No. 35041/2025. Thereafter victim (PW-1-A) and her parents (PW-1 and PW-4) 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 the pressure of family members of the victim. He has not committed the alleged offence. It is a case of romantic relationship between youngsters. The victim had left her parental home at her own and went with the applicant. Both of them got married and blessed with a child. Victim had stayed with the applicant for almost five years. When they returned home, false allegations of sexual assault are made against the applicant. The victim is presently living with the parents of the applicant. The determination of age of the victim during investigation is doubtful in view of the evidence of the victim and her parents. The trial would take time to conclude. Applicant has clean past, with family roots and property. There is no history of evading process of law. There is no likelihood of tampering with remaining evidence by the applicant. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.The alleged offence is not heinous or brutal in nature affecting society at large.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the 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. Applicant is aged around 27 years. He is a labourer by profession.

7. As per accusation, applicant Ravi, aged around 27 years, kidnapped the minor victim aged around 16 years and subjected her to penetrative sexual assault. The material prosecution witness victim (PW-1-A), her father (PW-1) and mother (PW-4) have been examined. Prima-facie, the element of inducement, enticement, compulsion or force to leave her parental home is missing in the evidence of victim. Applicant was apprehended on 15.02.2025. He is in custody ever since. The contentions advanced by the applicant have prima-facie merit and cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of prosecution, complicity of applicant and age of victim will be determined after evidence in the trial.

8. As informed, the applicant has responsibility of aged parents. 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 tampering with remaining evidence or influencing the witnesses by the applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue incarceration of the young applicant. However, t