Raja@Rajendra Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2020

[Cites 9, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raja@Rajendra Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2020

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                   1
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   M.Cr.C. No.2610/2020
    (Raja @ Rajendra Rajak Vs. State of M.P. and another)

Gwalior, dated : 22.01.2020

      Shri Naval Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri     Aditya   Singh,   learned    Public   Prosecutor    for

respondent/State.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant made a oral prayer for correction regarding name of applicant in memo of bail application.

Considering the above submissions, oral prayer is accepted. Let necessary correction be carried out across the Board. After correction, matter is heard finally. The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who has been arrested and is in custody since 19.12.2019, in connection with Crime No.59/2019, registered at Police Station Dheerpura, District Datia (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

It is the submission of counsel for the applicant that the false case has been registered against him and he is in confinement since 19.12.2019 whereas charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that in the case in hand, two statements under Sections 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2610/2020 (Raja @ Rajendra Rajak Vs. State of M.P. and another) 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. were taken by the Investigating Officer and both the statements bear contradictions from their earlier statements. The whole prosecution story appears to be doubtful and guided by motive. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and make himself available as and when required by the trial court. He would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the prosecution witnesses in any manner. He would not move in the vicinity of complainant party. Under these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer made by the applicant and prayed for dismissal of this application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as fact situation of the case, but 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 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2610/2020 (Raja @ Rajendra Rajak Vs. State of M.P. and another) satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions:-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

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

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

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for information.

C.c. as per rules.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2020.01.23 12:58:15 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court