Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2016
M.Cr.C.No.14364/2016
Kamal Singh Vs. State of M.P.
16.12.2016
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri N.S. Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State.
This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. First bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.11.2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.13160/2016. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.109/2016 registered at Police Station Karariya, District Vidisha, for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2) of IPC and section 5/6 of POSCO Act.
According to prosecution case, the complainant has lodged the report that his daughter gone missing. He expressed his suspicion over Kamal. During investigation, the daughter of the complainant was recovered. In her statement she disclosed that the applicant used to meet her and after seeing her used to say that he likes her. He would marry with her. On 27.5.2016 Kamal told her uncle that she would get employed at Bhopal and asked him to give marksheet. Thereafter took her to Bhopal kept there and committed sexual intercourse with her.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated. The statement of victim and her father have been recorded during trial. The victim has not made any allegation against the applicant. The applicant is under custody since 26.06.2016. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. Hence prayed for grant of bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
As per marksheet, the date of birth of the victim is 1.3.2001. As per medical report, no injury has been found. No definite opinion has been given regarding sexual intercourse. She was referred for x- ray, but her father refused to get his daughter x-ray. On perusal of the statement of victim (PW/1) and her father Ganeshram (PW/2) recorded during trial, it appears that the victim has not made any allegation against the applicant.
Considering the statement of the victim and her father coupled with the fact that applicant is under custody since 26.06.2016, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on 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 Trial Court.
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 them;
2.The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3.The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts 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 previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van