Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY
ON THE 30th OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13866 of 2022
Between:-
ARJUN MEENA S/O BABULAL MEENA , AGED
ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
VILLAGE SANKALA POLICE STATION AHMADPUR
DISTRICT SEHORE M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
( SHRI ASHISH SINHA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION SHYAMPUR DISTRICT SEHORE
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PROSECUTRIX A S/O NOT MENTION NOT
MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRADEEP GUPTA, LEARNED G.A. FOR THE RESPNODENT /
STATE
NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DESPITE COMPLIANCE OF
SECTION 439(1)A OF CR.P.C BY THE STATE
This M.Cr.C. coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant Arjun Meena was arrested on 19.12.2021 in connection with Crime No.407/2021 registered at Police Station Shyampur, Distt. Sehore (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376(2)(n), 376D-A, 120B, 506 of IPC, Section 5 /6 of POCSO Act and section 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of SC / ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
As per the prosecution case, in the month of December, 2019 prosecutrix-A who was a minor went to her aunt's house located at village Sakla, where she came Signature Not Verified SAN into contact with the applicant, who was a neighbour of her aunt. At that time Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2022.03.31 12:31:12 IST prosecutrix-A stayed there for two months. During that period applicant committed 2 rape with her twice. After that the applicant used to talk to her on the phone. On 12.12.2021 the applicant talked to the prosecutrix-A on phone and told her to come to Bhopal, whereupon on 17.12.2021 prosecutrix -A along with her friend prosecutrix-B, who was also minor and co-accused Kanha who is her relative went to Bhopal. Before that co-accused Kanha had also raped prosecutrix-A. On 17.12.2021 Prosecutrix -A and Prosecutrix -B reached Bhopal along with co- accused Kanha, but applicant did not come to meet her. In Bhopal Prosecutrix A and B went to Vardhman Park along with co-accused Kanha. When they were sitting in the park talking to each other, co-accused Junaid, Shahnawaz, Faizan, Shahbar and Faraz came there and co-accused Shahbar and Faraz took the prosecutrix A and B with them to a lonely place, where co-accused Shahbar committed rape with the prosecutrix A and co-accused Faraz committed rape with the prosecutrix-B. Thereafter, at 10:30 pm co-accused Shahbar left the prosecutrix A and B at bus-stand where co-accused Junaid and Shahnawaz met them. They took them in the house of co-accused Noman, where co-accused Noman committed rape with the prosecutrix-A and co-accused Junaid committed rape with prosecutrix-B. At around 1:30 am Shahbar came there and took the prosecutrix A and B at the house of co-accused Faizan, where co-accused Faizan tried to commit rape with prosecutrix-B. On that prosecutrix A and B ran away from his house and with the help of one boy went to police station Hanuman Ganj, where they reported the incident to police.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is alleged that applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix -A in the year 2019, while prosecutrix-A lodged the report against the applicant in the year 2021. Even in the MLC report of the prosecutrix-A it is mentioned that her hymen was found intact, which clearly shows that prosecutrix lodged false report against the applicant. Applicant has no criminal past. Applicant has been in custody since 19.12.2021, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be Signature Not Verified released on bail.
SAN Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMARLearned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that SARATHE Date: 2022.03.31 12:31:12 IST applicant committed rape with a minor girl. So, he should not be released on bail.
3Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that it is alleged that applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix in the year 2019 while the prosecutrix lodged the report in year 2021, applicant has no criminal past, he is in custody since 19.12.2021, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on 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 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;
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) JUDGE sarathe Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2022.03.31 12:31:12 IST