Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1222 (MP)

Rajvati v. State of M. P.

2015-12-07

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No.10345/2015, an application under section 301(2) of CrPC filed on behalf of complainant seeking permission to assist the prosecution at the time of hearing. 2. Considering the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. 3. This is the first application for regular bail under section 439 of CrPC. The applicant has been arrested on 31.10.2015 in connection with Crime No.145/2015, registered at Police Station Noorabad District Morena for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366 of IPC and under section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 4. It is alleged that the complainant Kartar Singh, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a report that he is resident of village Kaithoda under the Police Station Endori District Bhind. He purchased a house at Village Lohagarh Marvadipura four years ago. On 27.10.2015 his wife Shridevi and minor daughter prosecutrix were at their home. The accused Rajkumar along with his uncle Dharmsingh had gone to his home. In the morning mother of the prosecutrixs did not find prosecutrix, accused Rajkumar and his uncle. She immediately informed the same to the complainant Kartar Singh. When they could not find, despite search, he lodged the report. The applicant Smt. Rajvati is the mother of accused Rajkumar. It is alleged that the minor prosecutrix was instigated and enticed to marry with her son Rajkumar. 5. On behalf of applicant, it is submitted that applicant is the mother of Rajkumar. Earlier marriage of the prosecutrix was settled with accused Rajkumar. Rajkumar met with an accident and his leg was amputated, hence, the marriage was broken. It is also stated that the prosecutirx is not a minor. The prosecutrix voluntarily left with Rajkumar and they got married at Arya Samaj Mandir. Radiological age of the prosecutrix is more than 20 years. In Adhar Card date of birth declared by the prosecurtix was 14.1.1996. 6. On behalf of the State, application is vehemently opposed on the ground that the prosecutrix is minor and she was abducted by the accused Rajkumar and his uncle Dharamsingh. Accused Rajkumar has criminal history and 20 criminal cases have been registered against him. 7. On behalf of the complainant, it is stated that the prosecutrix is minor is yet to be recovered. The applicant is the mother of the accused Rajkumar. She enticed and helped in abduction of the minor prosecutrix. 8. Considered. 9. Accused Rajkumar has criminal history and 20 criminal cases have been registered against him. 7. On behalf of the complainant, it is stated that the prosecutrix is minor is yet to be recovered. The applicant is the mother of the accused Rajkumar. She enticed and helped in abduction of the minor prosecutrix. 8. Considered. 9. The applicant is the mother of accused Rajkumar. The applicant neither had gone to the complainant house nor she has been shown as a witness to the marriage allegedly performed in the Arya Samaj Mandir. The applicant is a woman of 55 years of age. It is not the intention of the legislature to resort to pre trial punishment as a mode of punishment. 10. Considering the above, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing her presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. 11. 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 her; 2. The applicant will co-operate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicant will not indulge herself 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 they are accused; 5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 6. In case of any breach of any of the conditions above the learned trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.