Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 811 (MP)

Phool Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-07-11

D.K.PALIWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT D.K. Paliwal, J. 1. Heard. 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. 08/2014 registered at P.S. Dinara, District Shivpuri, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children of Sexual Offence Act. 4. As per prosecution case, father of the victim namely Surendra Kumar has lodged the missing report of his daughter aged about 17 years. During enquiry, it was found that daughter of the complainant has changed her statement. She disclosed that Sunil and Patiram came her shop, she was alone Sunil promised her to marry with her and took her on Motorcycle to Datia, thereafter to Sikdaua, thereafter they have brought her to Karera. Phool Singh and Narendra were relative to Sunil. They met and they told Sunil that he should take her to Ahmedabad. Thereafter they sent her on Bus alongwith Sunil to Ahemedabad. It is further submitted that Patiram and Sunil have committed sexual intercourse with the victim, however, in the statement of 161 Cr. P.C. victim has changed her statement and stated that she was in her house and Sunil and Narendra came from back door of her house and thereafter they took her forcibly to Datia where co-accused has committed rape upon her and took her to Ahmedabad. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated. He has not committed any offence. There is no allegation against the applicant regarding abduction of the victim as well as commission of rape. Charge sheet has been filed. Co-accused Narendra Singh has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 9.6.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4541/2014 and the case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused. Hence, on the ground of parity, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. 6. The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Perused the case diary. 8. Co-accused Narendra Singh has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 9.6.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4541/2014 and the case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused. Hence, on the ground of parity, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. 6. The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Perused the case diary. 8. Considering that there is no allegation against the applicant for abduction and commission of rape and case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Narendra Singh, but without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, 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. 9. This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicants are free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court. 10. C.C. as per rules.