Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sasntosh Nayak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2017
M.Cr.C. No.20371/ 2017
(Santosh Nayak Vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated: 27/11/2017
Shri A.S. Parihar, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey, Government Advocate for the
respondent/ State.
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Santosh Nayak in Crime No.809/2016 registered by Police Station- Kolgawan, District- Satna, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was a minor being 15 years and 3 months old on the date of offence. On 29.08.2016, she was kidnapped by the petitioner from the lawful guardianship of her mother on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner took the prosecutrix to Jhansi, where they entered into some sort of marriage. Thereafter, the relatives of the prosecutrix went to Jhansi and she was recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother in the Trial Court have been recorded. The prosecutrix and her mother have turned totally hostile and have not supported the prosecution case at all. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that she had gone to her maternal uncle's place without informing her mother; therefore, she had lodged the report. The petitioner had not taken her anywhere nor did she accompany the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the statements of the prosecution witnesses cannot be appreciated or evaluated for the purpose of grant of bail to an accused person.
It is true that the statements of the prosecution witnesses can neither be appreciated nor evaluated for the purpose of grant of bail to an accused person; however, this is not a case of appreciation or evaluation of prosecution evidence, but total lack thereof. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to keep the petitioner in custody during the entire length of the trial.
Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Santosh Nayak deserves to be and is accordingly allowed.
It is directed that the petitioner Santosh Nayak shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge @PK