HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VISHAL DHAGAT
Chand Ali – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 10334/2024
BAIL - POCSO ACT - SECTION 439 CRPC - MINOR PROSECUTRIX - BAIL GRANTED AFTER TWO YEARS OF INCARCERATION
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested on 11.01.2022 for offences under Sections 363, 366, 120-B, 109, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 5/6 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act. The prosecutrix was a minor and less than 16 years of age. She had specifically stated that the applicant had raped her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had been in jail for more than two years. The prosecutrix had been examined in the Court and there was no chance that the applicant would be able to influence the witness or tamper with evidence.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail after two years of incarceration for offences under the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail as he had been in jail for more than two years and there was no chance that he would be able to influence the witness or tamper with evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount.
ORDER
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail who is in custody since 11.01.2022 relating to FIR No.250/2021 registered at Police Station Jawa District Rewa (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 120-B, 109, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 5/6 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is in jail since 11.01.2022. He has falsely been implicated in the case. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. Prosecutrix has been examined in the Court and now there is no chance that applicant will be able to influence the witness or tamper with evidence. Hence, he may be granted bail.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the application for grant of bail. It is submitted that prosecutrix is minor and less than 16 years of age. She has specifically stated that applicant has rapped on her. Hence, he may not be granted bail. 4. Heard the counsel for the parties. 5. Applicant is in jail since last more than two years. Prosecutrix has been examined in the Court and now there is no chance that applicant will be able to influence the witness or tamper with evidence. Considering aforesaid facts of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, bail application filed by applicant is allowed.
6. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his regular appearance before Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of trial.
7. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. as under:- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.