Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1161 (MP)

Bhaddu Agaria v. State Of M. P.

2020-10-23

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2020
JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - The proceeding was convened through video conferencing. 2. Heard with the aid of case diary. 3. This is third application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicants Bhaddu Agaria and Ashok Agaria were arrested on 11.02.2020 in Crime No. 256/2019 registered at Police Station Gohparu, District Shahdol for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n), 109 of IPC r/w Section 5/6,17 of POCSO Act, 2012. 4. The earlier bail applications of the applicants were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide orders dated 03.02.2020 and 16.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4331/2020 and 17920/2020. 5. As per the prosecution case, on 26.07.2019 applicants Bhaddu Agaria, Ashok Agaria and co-accused Radha Baiga abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor aged about 14 years and took her to Shahdol Railway Station where they handed over her to co-accused Dileep, who took the prosecutrix to Raipur by train where he kept her for seven days and sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that co-accused Radha Baiga was granted bail by the trial court itself. Applicants have been in custody since 11.02.2020 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicants on bail. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicants abducted the prosecutrix who was minor aged about 14 years and handed over her to co-accused Dileep who sexually exploited her, so they should not be released on bail. 8. Earlier bail applications of the applicants were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide orders dated 03.02.2020 and 16.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4331/2020 and 17920/2020, since then there is no change in circumstance. It is alleged that applicants abducted a minor girl aged about 14 years and handed over her to co-accused Dileep who sexually exploited her. So, at this stage, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 9. Hence, the M.Cr.C. is rejected.