Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Bheel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 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 4 th OF APRIL, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12137 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAJU BHEEL S/O MANGILALJI BHEEL, AGED 27 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABO R/O GRAM LAXMIPURA THANA
NIMBAHEDA DISTT. CHITTORGARH (RAJASTHAN)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR LALWANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION NEEMUCH CITY DIST.
NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM X THROUGH POLICE THANA NEEMUCH
CITY DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIRAJ GODHA - PL)
(NONE PRESENT FOR THE VICTIM, THOUGH SERVED)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is second application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant/accused, relating to FIR/Crime No.145/2023 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station - Neemuch City, District Neemuch (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2) (N), 376(3) and 344 of IPC alongwith 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-04- 2024 10:51:00 2 Sexual Offences Act.
2. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.09.2023 passed in MCRC No.36888/2023.
3. Prosecution story, in brief is that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was minor, aged below 16 years. On 07.04.2023, the present applicant with the help of co-accused Adsi Bai took the prosecutrix to Laxmipura, Nimbaheda (Rajasthan) at his house and kept her for around 11 days. Meanwhile, applicant committed rape upon the prosecutrix repeatedly.
4. 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 submitted that after dismissal of first bail application of the applicant, the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her mother (PW-1) have been examined before the trial Court, but they have completely turned hostile. Mother of prosecutrix (PW-1) admitted that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was aged more than 18 years.
5. It is further submitted that applicant is in custody since 18.05.2023. 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.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State has opposed the prayer and submits that case of prosecution is not supported by DNA report. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and after perusal of the case diary so also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail hence, the application is allowed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-04- 2024 10:51:00 38. It is directed that the applicant - Raju shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned 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 pendency of the trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
9. This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
10. With the aforesaid, this application is allowed and stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE Shruti Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-04- 2024 10:51:00