Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1196 (MP)

Man Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-09-24

D.K.PALIWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.Heard. Perused the case diary. 2. This is third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No. 382/2013 registered at Police Station, Cantt, District Guna, for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 376, 506/34 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The first application (M.Cr.C. No. 8354/2013) and second application (M.Cr.C. No. 9754/2013) have been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.13 and 20.12.13 respectively. 3. As per prosecution case, on 18.8.2013 daughters of the complainant aged 13 years and 12 years respectively were alone in the house. When complainant came back to home at 9.30 PM, her husband told that accused Man Singh has committed rape with both the daughters and he himself has seen Man Singh accompanying his daughters. He caught hold of Man Singh, but he ran away and threatened to kill the whole family. Report of the incident was lodged on 7.9.2013. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after rejection of the second bail application, the statements of both the victims have been recorded on 12.5.14. He further submits that as per the x-ray report, one of the victim has been found to be above 18 years and below 19 years. The second victim has been found to be above 14 years and below 16 years. He further submits that the victim, who is found above 18 years, in her cross-examination has admitted that Mansingh slapped her father, therefore, enmity is going on. She further stated that son of Mansingh had also quarreled with his father. She further admitted that Vijay Singh Deewanji has got the FIR registered and son of applicant has committed murder of son of Vijay Singh. She further admitted that her mother told that Government will provide some money after lodging the report. The learned counsel submits that in the light of the aforesaid statement and the fact that applicant is in custody since 7.9.13, the applicant be released on bail. 5. The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the statements of victim (PW-5) and another victim (PW-6), daughters of Rambabu. Both these witnesses have admitted that son of Mansingh has committed murder of son of Vijaysingh. The victim (PW-5) has admitted that Vijaysingh used to visit her house. Both these witnesses have also admitted that Vijaysingh got the report recorded. I have perused the statements of victim (PW-5) and another victim (PW-6), daughters of Rambabu. Both these witnesses have admitted that son of Mansingh has committed murder of son of Vijaysingh. The victim (PW-5) has admitted that Vijaysingh used to visit her house. Both these witnesses have also admitted that Vijaysingh got the report recorded. Both the witnesses further admitted that their parents have told them what they have to depose before the Court. As per the x-ray report of victim (PW-6), it appears that she has been found above 18 and below 19 years and victim (PW-5) is found above 14 and below 16 years. 6. Considering the aforesaid statements of the victims, coupled with the fact that applicant is in custody for more than a year and trial is still going on, 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. 7. 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 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/her 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.