Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2015
1
M.Cr.C. No. 1376/2015
(Sachin Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P.)
17.03.2015
Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant Sachin Ahirwar in Crime No.66/2015 registered by P.S.-Basoda, District-Vidisha, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 (2) (i), 376 (2) (v) of IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
As per the prosecution case, the age of the prosecutrix is 14 years and she has studied upto 10th standard. On 2nd of February, 2015, she went with the applicant Sachin from her village Rajakedi to Mandi Bamora and then to Gwalior. Therefrom, they returned to Beena. At Beena railway station, they were caught by the police. As per the prosecution version, prosecutrix was enticed away by the applicant on the promise of marriage and was subjected to sexual intercourse.
2It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the age of the of the prosecutrix is not 14 years but as per the Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India, her date-of-birth is 01.01.1994. As such, on the date of the incident, she was more than 20 years of age. It has also been submitted that along with the charge-sheet a certification of Principal of Subhash Niketan Higher Secondary School has been filed. As per the aforesaid certification dated 21.02.2015, the date-of-birth of the prosecutrix is 05.02.1998. It has further been submitted on behalf of the applicant that as per the BPL card, the age of the prosecutrix is shown to be 17 years. In her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganjbasoda had estimated her age to be 18 years.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that charge-sheet has been filed on 23.02.2015 and the applicant is in custody since 03.02.2015. The prosecutrix herself stated under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she had accompanied the applicant on her own free will. She was in love with the applicant. She further stated that applicant had established physical relation with her by her consent. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant be released on bail.
Learned panel lawyer on the other hand has opposed the application on the ground that as per the mark-sheet 3 issued by Subhash Niketan Higher Secondary School, the date-of-birth is 10.11.2001 and therefore, as per the school record, her age was less than 14 years on the date of the incident.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the different version on record with regard to the age of the prosecutrix and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is directed that 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 in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant shall be released on bail.
C.C. as per rules.
(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge bj/-