Sammar Singh @ Bade Raja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2021

[Cites 12, Cited by 2]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sammar Singh @ Bade Raja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2021

Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey

       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       M.Cr.C. No.7802/2021
        (Sammar Singh @ Bade Raja Vs. State of M.P. )
                                                                        1

Jabalpur, Dated : 12 / 03 / 2021
       Shri P.K. Thakre, counsel for the applicant.
       Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the respondent / State.

None for the objector despite compliance of Section 439(1)A of Cr.P.C. by the State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is second application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Sammar Singh @ Bade Raja was arrested on 20.08.2019 in Crime No. 122/2017 registered at Police Station Lidhora, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 3 /4, 5/6, 17 of POCSO Act.

The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 05.11.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41520/2019 with liberty to file afresh after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix.

As per the prosecution story, applicant Sammar Singh and co- accused Bhupendra Singh resident of Village Ison abducted the prosecutrix on 23/06/2017 from village Ishon, P.S. Lighura, who was minor at the time of incident and thereafter applicant Sammar Singh took her to village Jeron then to Talbehat and from there to Kidwah where he kept her in the house of Deepak for 10 days and committed rape with her. Thereafter, he took the prosecutrix to Sagar, Jhansi, Indore by train and thereafter from Indore to Kalon (Gujarat) via Vadodara, where applicant Samhar Singh kept her in the house of his brother Akhilesh for 10 days. There also applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix. On 18/07/2017 father of the prosecutrix came there and rescued her from the house of Akhilesh and took her to village Lidhora. Police registered Crime No.122/2017 regarding incident for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 3/4, 5/6, 11 of the POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial court. She did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7802/2021 (Sammar Singh @ Bade Raja Vs. State of M.P. ) 2 Even statements of other prosecution witnesses namely Swati (PW-

1),Phool Kunwar (PW-2), Pran Singh Bundela (PW-4) have also been recorded by the trial court they also did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. The applicant has been in custody since 20.08.2019 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that statement of prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial court, the applicant is in custody since 20.08.2019 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the trial;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

C.C. on payment of usual charges.



                                                          (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
sarathe                                                         Judge

               Digitally signed
               by NAVEEN
               KUMAR
               SARATHE
               Date:
               2021.03.12
               17:53:37 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court