Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 292 (MP)

Nanne @ Om Prakash v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2023-02-21

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL

body2023
JUDGMENT Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 2. This is the first application u/S.439 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail. 3. The applicant was arrested on 29.11.2022 by Police Station- Gijorra District- Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.146/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 363, 376 of IPC and 5, 6 of POCSO Act. 4. In brief, case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2022 at 2:31 pm, prosecutrix aged about 14 years lodged an FIR at Police Station Gijorra District Gwalior against present applicant accused that on 20.11.2022 in the night at 11 pm, she was sleeping near her mother on a cot. Her neighborer present applicant accused who is her family member knocked the door. She awoke and opened the door. Thereafter present applicant-accused caughthold of her hand and pulled her and committed sexual intercourse with her shutting her mouth and locked her in a room. Thereafter on 21.11.2022 at 8 pm present applicant opened the lock and took out the prosecutrix. Afterwards prosecutrix went to the house and narrated the story to her mother, brother and Phoopa. On her report, crime No. 146/2022 for the offence punishable under section 363, 376 of IPC and 5, 6 of POCSO Act. was registered against present applicant. She was sent for medical examination. Applicant was arrested on 29.11.2022. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the applicant made submission that it is very surprising that prosecutrix remained about 21 hrs in the captivity of present applicant and her family members not remained worried about her. Besides this, FIR is highly belated. False allegations have been made against present applicant with some ulterior motive. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted and therefore, further custodial interrogation is no more required. Conclusion of trial will take time. There is no possibility of his absconding or tempering with prosecution case. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, without commenting upon the merits of the case, is of the opinion that the application should be allowed and by allowing the application it is ordered that if the applicant furnishes a cash security of Rs.25,000/- alongwith a personal bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he shall be released on bail. 9. He will present during trial before the trial Court on each and every date. In case of any default, cash security of Rs.25,000/- shall be forfeited without giving any notice. 10. Application stands allowed and disposed of. 11. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. 12. Certified copy as per rules.