Jay Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1666 MP

                                   1
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                        ON THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4768 of 2022

         Between:-
         JAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI RAJU
         CHOUDHARY , AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
         OCCUPATION: LABOUR INDRANA CHOWKI
         INDRANA P.S. MANJHOULI DIST. JABALPUR
         MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI ADITYA NARAYAN GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

         AND

         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
         P.S. RANJHI DIST. JABALPUR MP (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI ANIL UPADHYAY, PANEL LAWYER)
                      (Heard through Video Conferencing)
      This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by

the applicant for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 18/11/2021 by Police Station Ranjhi District Jabalpur in connection with Crime No.743/2021 for t h e offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376(2) (n) of Indian Penal Code r/w 4, 5 (l), and 6 of POCSO Act.

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and has not committed any offence in any manner. The applicant as well as victim wherein good friendship and she herself left her house and accompanied the present applicant and they stayed at different places. They have also solemnized marriage in a temple and while residing at Ranjhi. They were traced out by the police authorities and then applicant was taken into custody. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C she has

categorically stated the aforesaid aspect. The age of the victim is 17 years and 3 months. They have solemnized marriage and stayed as husband and wife for a considerable period but owing to the fact that the she was a minor as per the school records. The applicant was taken into cusdoty however, the ossification test of the victim was got done under the instructions of the Doctors and she was found to be major in the ossification report. He is in

custody since 18/11/2021. Charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. He is the first offender. In such circumstance, no case is made out under the POCSO Act. There is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. H e is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering this bail application. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail.

He has placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Dinesh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2020) 1 CriCC 344, in the case of Deepu alias Deepak Kushbandiya Vs. State of M.P passed in M.Cr.C No.32857/2020 decided on 28/09/2020 and in the case of Ajitbhai Maganbhai Gohil Vs. State of Gujrat passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1999/2019 decided on 06/03/2019 and is argued that in almost similar circumstances, Court has not only released the applicant on bail but he was also acquitted by the High Court of Rajasthan. In such circumstances, the case of the present applicant is exactly identical to that of aforesaid cases.Therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

P er contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that victim was admittedly minor at the time of commission of offence as per school records and in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P reported in (2012) 9 SCC 750, the guidelines have been issued with respect to consideration of documents pertaining to age and school scholar register is available then there was no requirement for

conducting an ossification test. It is argued that fairly she herself admitted in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C that they have developed physical relations and residing as husband and wife. Consent of minor is having no value. She was withdrawn and taken away from the lawful custody of her parent. In such circumstances, no case for bail is made out.

Taken into considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C coupled with the fact that she was reported to be major in ossification test and also the fact that the age of the victim is 17 years 3 months as per the scholar register and a specific statement made by her that they have solemnized marriage and living as husband and wife and is able to understand the consequences and

the fact that the charge sheet has been filed, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this application is allowed subject to verification of the fact that the applicant is the first offender. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

I n view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima-facie, if it is found that he is having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured, otherwise applicant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence.

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 him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself 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 or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4 . The applicant shall not involve any other offence, in case the applicant indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

7. If the applicant is found involved in any case except present one, his bail shall stand rejected without any reference to the court;

8. The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Prar

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date:

2022.02.09 11:16:08 +05'30'