Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gokul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 24 th OF JANUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55109 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
GOKUL S/O RAJARAM, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O WARD NO. 6 JULMI KOTA
RAJ (RAJASTHAN)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI SHYAM SINGH TANWAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION KANADIYA, DIST.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIRAJ GODHA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(NONE FOR THE PROSECUTRIX, THOUGH SERVED)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant/accused, relating to FIR/Crime No.522/2023 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station, Kanadiya, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and under Section 3, 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that at the time of incident prosecutrix Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 25-01-2024 10:03:47 2 was aged around 16 years. Prior to the incident the prosecutrix and the applicant were known to each other. On 8.8.2023 the prosecutrix without informing her family members left her home and met with the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant took the prosecutrix at his home situated at Rajasthan, where he committed rape upon her. On 12.8.2023 the Police had recovered the prosecutrix.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant has not committed the offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix is illeterate person and as per ossification report her age is 15 to 17 years, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was minor lady. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix herself left her home and went with the applicant. The prosecutrix was consenting party for sexual intercourse. It is submitted that applicant is in custody since 12.8.2023. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Trial will take considerable long time for its disposal, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State has opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and after perusal of the case diary so also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
6. It is directed that applicant - Gokul shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each out of which one local surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for his Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 25-01-2024 10:03:47 3 appearance before the concerned Court regularly on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
8. With the aforesaid, this application is allowed and stands disposed of. Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE patil Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 25-01-2024 10:03:47