Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2016
MCRC-21871-2015
(AJAY SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
11-04-2016
Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri
Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/ State.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 156/2015, registered at P.S. Begumganj, District-Raisen for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 368 of the IPC & Sections 5 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
It is submitted by learned senior counsel that the age of the prosecutrix has not been properly verified by the prosecution. Apart from this the prosecutrix had travelled with the applicant at various places, hence it cannot be said that the applicant had committed sexual intercourse with her.
The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. deposed that on 02/05/2015 she had gone with the applicant along with another person on a motor bike and they had taken her to Sagar and thereafter from Sagar to Nagpur in sleeper bus and she returned back to Village- Persora Begumganj. At that place Ajay Sahu and their family members had pressurized her for marriage, thereafter marriage ceremony was performed at the Kankali Mandir, Raisen, thereafter the prosecutrix had gone to Mandideep, she lived there for a period of 10 days, thereafter she along with the applicant had gone Patel Nagar where the present applicant had committed rape with her. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned on the basis of mark-sheet of Middle School on 02/08/1998, however, as per the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the age of the minor/juvenile has to be determined accordingly.
"(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining-
(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a Panchayat.
The prayer for bail is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case and the fact that the prosecutrix had gone several places with the applicant. She lived with the applicant for considerable period and marriage ceremony was also performed, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) by the applicant along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the applicant be released on bail with a direction to appear before the trial court on the date of the trial.
The applicant shall abide by the following conditions of 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. as under:-
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter,
(b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA