Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1322 (MP)

Suresh v. State of M. P.

2013-10-30

D.K.PALIWAL

body2013
Judgment: D.K. Paliwal, J.;— 1. Heard. Perused the case diary. 2. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 109/2013 registered at P.S. Bahadurpur, District Ashoknagar, for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 4. As per the prosecution case, daughter of the complainant aged about 12 years went to answer call of nature at 10:00 P.M. in he field. She did not return. She came back on the next day about 1:00 P.M. When complainant asked, she disclosed that Kunwarraj met her and took her to on his well and committed rape with her. On the next morning took her towards school and threatened her if she discloses, then her parents would be killed. The statement of daughter of the complainant has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. on 24.08.2013 i.e. after one and half months of the incident. She has stated that Kunwar Raj and Suresh took her to the house of Savita and gave a glass of water and also threatened her. After drinking water she became unconscious. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He is not named in the F.I.R. Report has been lodged by applicant on 1.11.2012 against the complainant Mahesh and his wife. On this the applicant has falsely been implicated. The applicant is permanent resident of village Bamuriya, District Ashoknagar. There is no likelihood of abscission or tampering with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, prayed for anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application submitting that victim is a minor girl and the applicant has been named in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. 7. The F.I.R. which has been lodged on the second day of the incident in which name of the applicant does not find place. The statement of the victim and her father has been recorded on 8.07.2013, but nowhere the applicant is named with principal accused. On 24.08.2013 i.e. after one and half months of the alleged incident the victim has disclosed that applicant also took her in the house of Savita. The statement of the victim and her father has been recorded on 8.07.2013, but nowhere the applicant is named with principal accused. On 24.08.2013 i.e. after one and half months of the alleged incident the victim has disclosed that applicant also took her in the house of Savita. Age of the victim has been found above 16 and below 18 years. Taking into consideration that name of the applicant has come only after one and half months of the incident, there is no allegation committing rape against him, I am of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and he will co-operate in the investigation. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr. P.C. 8. This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicant is free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court. C.C. as per rules.