Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2016
MCRC-14218-2015
(SANTOSH KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
21-06-2016
Shri Manish Datt senior counsel with Shri C.S.
Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vivek Lakhera, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.Nos.6041/2016 and 7336/2016 for taking additional documents on record.
After due consideration, the applications are allowed and additional documents are taken on record. Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant Santosh Kumar Tripathi in Crime No.05/2015 registered by P.S. Panvar, District-Rewa, under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also under Section 3(1) (xii) and (3) (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As per the prosecution case, prosecutrix was a 16 years old girl. In the month of August, 2014, she had gone to Kaudiha ghat to graze her cattle. At that time accused Santosh Tripathi promised to marry her and on the false promise of marriage, raped her. Thereafter, he continued to rape her till she became pregnant. Whereon, she informed her parents and the first information report was lodged on 04.02.2015. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that in support of age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution has filed a marks-sheet of Government Middle School Badachh, wherein her date of birth has been recorded as 03.03.1999. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that since the marks-sheet is not of the first school other than the play school, attended by the prosecutrix or of matriculation or equivalent examination, it cannot be relied upon in view of the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The applicant has filed ration- card of the prosecutrix and copy of the BPL registered to show that on the date of the offence, the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age. In addition thereto, it has also been contended that the FIR was delayed. The trial has proceeded with the trial and the statements of the prosecutrix and her parents have already been recorded. The applicant has been in custody since 12.06.2015; therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application. However, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the doubt with regard to age of the prosecutrix, the delay in lodging FIR, as also the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix and her parents has been recorded and the applicant has been in custody for a period of more than 1 year, 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 filed on behalf of the applicant Santosh Tripathi, is allowed.
It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the same amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with conditions enumerated under section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C., applicant Santosh Tripathi shall be released on bail.
C.C. as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE