Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 76 (MP)

Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2023-01-16

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT Subodh Abhyankar, J. - The appellant has preferred this (FIRST) criminal appeal under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended by Act of 2015) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, feeling aggrieved by order dated 02.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge [under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989], West Nimar Mandleshwar (MP) in Special ST / Bail Application No.341/2022, whereby the prayer for grant of regular bail has been declined. 2. Appellant has been arrested on 21.11.2022 in connection with Crime No.249/2022 registered at Police Station Karahi, District Khargone (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 344, 506 and 368 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and also under Sections 3 (2) (v) and 3 (2) (w) (i) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The allegation against the appellant is that of abduction and rape on the prosecutrix, aged 30 years. 4. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, which is also apparent from her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as she had left her house on her own volition at around 12.00 O clock in the night of 15.09.2022 and she has alleged that the main accused Devram has lured her. 5. Counsel has submitted that although it is alleged against main accused Devram that he has threatened the prosecutrix that he would shoot her, if she informs anybody; and so far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that she had resided with the main accused in the house of the present applicant for around twenty five days and from where she has been recovered. Thus, it is submitted that no overt act is attributed to the present applicant by the prosecutrix. 6. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 21.11.2022 and the final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time. Thus, it is submitted that the appellant be released on bail. 7. Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. 8. 6. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 21.11.2022 and the final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time. Thus, it is submitted that the appellant be released on bail. 7. Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. 8. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the case diary as also the statement of the prosecutrix, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal filed by the appellant. 9. Consequently, by setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court, the appeal is hereby allowed, without commenting anything on the merits of the matter. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his / her regular presence during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. 10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. 11. All the other pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.