Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1347 (MP)

Pooja Mahore v. State of M. P.

2014-10-16

B.D.RATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Arguments heard. Perused the case diary. 2. This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed for grant of bail on behalf of applicant. Applicant has been arrested on 30.06.2014 in connection with Crime No.227/2014 registered against her at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(a), 368, 372, 376 and 34 of IPC, Section 4 and 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(XII) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. 3. As per prosecution story, incident occurred on 07.04.2014 when the prosecutrix had gone from her house. Thereafter, missing person's report was lodged by her father Khemchand and the same was registered at Missing Report No.15/2014. This fact was mentioned in the enquiry report prepared on 28.06.2014 by the enquiry officer. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was recovered on 29.06.2014. Her statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter on 04.07.2014 her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which allegations were made by her against the present applicant. 4. Prayer for bail was made on the ground that in fact prosecutrix had fled away alongwith her boyfriend and family members were well aware of this fact, therefore, having allowed by the in-laws of the present applicant, missing persons report was lodged after 2-1/2 months and when one private complaint was lodged by the present applicant Pooja who is the daughter in law of Khemchand to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior against her in-laws for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Thereafter one complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the present applicant on 26.06.2014 against the Khemchand and other family members then prosecutrix was recovered on 29.06.2014. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that in recovery memo neither place of recovery was mentioned not was it mentioned that from whose possession prosecutrix was recovered. On these premised submissions, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Prayer for bail has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, entire material has been perused and on perusal, this court is inclined to grant bail to the present application. 6. 5. Prayer for bail has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, entire material has been perused and on perusal, this court is inclined to grant bail to the present application. 6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, application is allowed and it is directed that applicant Smt. Pooja Mahore be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for her regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that she shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. and so also as imposed by the trial Court. A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned. Certified copy as per rules.