Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bahadur Alias Balbahadur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2020
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.44970/2019
(Bahadur @ Balbahadur Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, dated :10.01.2020
Shri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Sumit Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant. 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 03.09.2019, in connection with Crime No. 192/2019 registered at Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 344, 366, 376/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
It is the submission of counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against the applicant and he is suffering confinement since 03.09.2019 on false pretext. Name of the applicant nowhere figured in FIR, statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix as well as in Court statement. Still he is suffering confinement just on the pretext of reference of his name by Mrs. Hridesh w/o Brajesh, which happens to be hear and say and cannot be applied for implication. It is further submitted that chance 2 of tempering with the evidence/witnesses is remote because prosecutrix has already deposed before the Court. 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 complainant party in any manner. Under these grounds, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as counsel for the complainant 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 satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions:-
3
1. vkosnd Loa; }kjk fu"ikfnr can i= dh leLr fuca/kuks ,oa 'krksZ dk vuqikyu djsxkA 2- vkosnd vUos"[email protected] esa izdj.k ,oa funsZ'kkuqlkj lg;ksx djsxkA 3- vkosnd ekeys ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks izyksHku] /kedh vFkok opu nsus esa Lo;a dks fyIr ugha djsxk] tks fd mls@mldks ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh ls izdVhdj.k djus ls izofjr djs] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks( 4- vkosnd ftl vijk/k dk vfHk;qDr gS oSlh gh izd`fr dk leku vijk/k dkfjr ugha djsxk( 5- vkosnd fopkj.k ds nkSjku vuko';d LFkxu dh ekWx ugh djsxkA 6- vkosnd fopkj.k U;k;ky;@vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dh iwoZ vuqefr ds fcuk Hkkjr ugh NksMsxkA tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks ,oa( fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks ,d ewyizfr vuqikyu ds fy, Hksth tk,A izekf.kr izfr fu;ekuqlkjA (Anand Pathak) Judge neetu SMT NEETU SHASHANK 2020.01.10 15:05:08 +05'30'