Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ajay Mahar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2022

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                               1
                            IN    THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                                ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22938 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           AJAY MAHAR S/O SHANTILAL MAHAR, AGED ABOUT 18
                           YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR JALOD, BILPANK
                           RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI ARIHANT KUMAR NAHAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BILPANK,
                           RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                           ( BY SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

1. They are heard. Perused the case diary /challan papers.

2. This is a First application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.291/2021 registered at Police Station Bilpank, District Ratlam (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and Section 5(j)II/6 of POCSO Act.

3. Applicant is in custody since 20.01.2022.

4. As per the prosecution, on 29.05.2022 a complaint was lodged by Signature Not Verified the father of the prosecutrix to the effect that the prosecutrix, a minor, is Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 22-12-2022 15:43:33 2 missing and cannot be traced out despite best efforts. On the complaint a missing person report was registered and search for the prosecutrix was made and she was eventually recovered on 20.01.2022 from the custody of the applicant and upon recording of her statement to the effect that she had gone along with the applicant who has committed rape upon her, the applicant has been implicated and arrested for the present offence.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has herself stated to have on her own gone along with the applicant at night after calling him to the back of his house. She had told the applicant that if he will not come along with her she will commit suicide. Thereafter they had gone to Ratlam and then to Panvel where they stayed in a room as husband and wife. She has stated that she developed physical relationship with applicant out of her own consent and the applicant did not exercise any force upon her. She has stated that she is pregnant also from the child of the applicant. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix as well as her father have been examined before the trial Court and they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. The prosecutrix has reiterated her statement as given under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in custody since 20.01.2022 and the trial is still likely to take time for its conclusion. On such grounds prayer for grant of bail to the applicant has been made.

6. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary.

8. The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. had herself stated to have called the applicant and having gone along with him out of her own will. She stated that she had threatened the applicant that if he will not come along with her she would commit suicide. They had gone to Panvel and had lived together as husband and wife and she developed physical relationship with him out of her own consent and the applicant did not exercise any force upon her. The prosecutrix reiterated her statement before the trial Court also in which she along with her father have been declared hostile. The applicant is in custody since 20.01.2022. The trial is still likely to take time for its conclusion. Thus, in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 22-12-2022 15:43:33