Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrabali Sahu @ Lallu Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2019
1 MCRC-7257-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-7257-2019
(CHANDRABALI SAHU @ LALLU SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-03-2019
Shri A.S. Pathak, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Satyendra Jyotshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case dairy perused and argument heard.
This is Third application of the applicant Chandrabali Sahu @ Lallu Sahu filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.408/2017 registered at Police Station Hanumana, District Rewa for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(i), 308, 506 & 201 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.02.2018 in M.Cr.C.No.5238/2018 and the second bail application has also been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.07.2018 in M.Cr.C.No.25519/2018.
As per the prosecution case, 9 months prior to 26.10.2017 applicant came to prosecutrix house, who was minor situated at village Asaha Ramratan and committed rape with her due to which she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby. On that applicant again came to the prosecutrix house and took that baby in a bag with him and threw in a field. On that police registered Crime No.408/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(i), 308, 506 & 201 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and also seized the bones of the said baby on the information of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is alleged that the applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix 9 months prior to 26.10.2017 due to which prosecutrix become pregnant and gave birth to a baby. It is also alleged that after that applicant again came to the prosecutrix house and took that baby with him in a bag and threw that baby in a field. But prosecutrix lodged the report some days later to the second incident. There is Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 06/03/2019 11:33:50 2 MCRC-7257-2019 no plausible explanation regarding the delay in FIR. Even in the DNA Report, it is clearly mentioned that prosecutrix is the biological mother of the baby but the applicant is not the biological father of the said baby. Which clearly shows that prosecutrix falsely implicated applicant in the crime. The charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody since 29.10.2017 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, hence prayed for the release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix due to which she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby, thereafter, the applicant threw that baby in a field. So, he should not be released on bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and the DNA report and as to the fact that the applicant is in custody since 29.10.2017, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to 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 concerned 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;Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 06/03/2019 11:33:50
3 MCRC-7257-2019
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 previous permission of the trial Court.
C.C. on payment of usual charges.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 06/03/2019 11:33:50