Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 337 (MP)

Kamal Kushwah v. State of M. P.

2025-06-12

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

body2025
JUDGMENT 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the State has raised objection with regard to maintainability of present bail application filed under section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by submitting that since the matter pertains to SC/ST Act and POCSO Act, against the impugned order passed by the Special Court dated 26.5.2025 rejecting appellant's bail application filed under section 483 of BNSS, 2023, criminal appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of bail would be maintainable. 2. The coordinate Bench in Cr.A. No. 7733/2021 vide order dated 5.1.2022 has held that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur by order dated 22.4.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.5189/2020 (Pramod Yadav v. State of M.P.), wherein it has been held that where the offences under the Act of 1989 as well as the POCSO Act have been registered, then the trial shall be conducted as per provisions of POCSO Act, therefore, this Criminal Appeal filed under section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989 is not maintainable and in fact, the application under section 439 of Cr.P.C should have been filed. 3. In view of above, the objection raised by counsel for the State is overruled. 4. This is first bail application under section 483 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of bail. 5. The applicant has been arrested on 1.5.2025 by Police StationDabra Dehat District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 126/2025 registered in relation to the offence punishable under section 64, 64(2)(m) of BNS and section 5/6 of POCSO Act and section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act. 6. According to the allegation in the F.I.R., the applicant is stated to have raped the prosecutrix under the promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her as she belongs to SC/ST community. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the age of prosecutrix is 17 years and 10 months. According to the prosecution story itself, the prosecutrix and the applicant were in relationship since 2019. The alleged incident of physical intimacy occurred on 6.1.2025 and 15.2.2025 and the FIR was filed on 30.4.2025 with an unexplained delay of nearly three months. The applicant is in custody since 1.5.2025 and trial will take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 8. The alleged incident of physical intimacy occurred on 6.1.2025 and 15.2.2025 and the FIR was filed on 30.4.2025 with an unexplained delay of nearly three months. The applicant is in custody since 1.5.2025 and trial will take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 8. Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the application and submitted that the applicant has sexually exploited the victim on the pretext of marriage and ultimately refused to marry with her as she belongs to SC/ST community. Thus, it is prayed that present bail application be dismissed. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre- trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court. 11. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:- i. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; ii. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; iii. The applicant will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court tor to the Police Officer, as the case may be; iv. The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically, without further reference to the Bench; v. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and vi. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance. 13. Certified copy as per rules.