Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.31092/2021
(Raju Vs. The State of M.P.)
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 25/6/2021
Shri Neeraj Dhamaniya, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Mishra, Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Heard through Video Conferencing.
I.A. No.18521/2021, an application for urgent hearing is allowed.
Case diary perused.
The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Shamshabad Vidisha, in connection with Crime No.51/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 363 and subsequently enhanced 376(2)(n), 376(2)(j), 344 of the IPC and 5(I)/6 of the POCSO Act.
Allegation against the applicant, in short, is that he enticed the prosecutrix and took her along with him without the knowledge of her parents. He took her to Jodhpur and lived there for 6-7 months. Thereafter they got married and in the wedlock they have one son.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 13/6/2021. At the time of incident, the prosecutrix was seventeen and a half years old and had gone along with the applicant on her own volition.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.31092/2021 (Raju Vs. The State of M.P.) (2) There was no forceful abduction. Thereafter both of them got married in a temple and have a son aged about eight months. Even in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has admitted the aforesaid facts. It is further submitted that in view of outbreak of COVID 19, detention of the applicant in already congested prison may be detrimental. There is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the borderline age of the prosecutrix and the fact that now they are married and have a son, coupled with the fact that owing to second wave of COVID 19 the trial is held-up and there is a need to de- congest the prisons which are potential hotspots of infection, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.31092/2021 (Raju Vs. The State of M.P.) (3) 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 a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court. The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant shall install Aarogya Setu App (if not already installed) in his mobile phone.
2. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
3. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
4. The applicant will not indulge 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;
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.
7. If the applicant commits any offence while on bail, this order shall automatically stand cancelled HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.31092/2021 (Raju Vs. The State of M.P.) (4) without reference to the Court.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAV A 2021.06.26 09:08:33 +05'30'