Shahrukh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7559 MP

                                   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT INDORE
                                BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
                           ON THE 2nd OF JUNE, 2022

               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26684 of 2022

        Between:-
        SHAHRUKH S/O SHABBIR KHA , AGED ABOUT
        22   YEARS, UDAN MOHALLA BADNAGAR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI ANIL OJHA, ADVOCATE)

        AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
        HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
        BADNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      VICTIM X THROUGH P.S. BADNAGAR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI GOVIND PUROHIT, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

      This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

This is a first application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with Crime No.556/2021 registered at police station Badnagar, district Ujjain for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the IPC and under section 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act.

As per prosecution story on 03.07.2021 at 22.15 p.m the complainant/informant (mother of the prosecutrix) lodged a report in the police station, Badnagar, district Ujjain that on that day at 09.30 a.m she and her elder daughter went for labour work leaving her son and daughter (prosecutrix) at

home. In the evening at 06.30 p.m when they returned back home, her son Shivam informed her that prosecutrix went to purchase chocolate at 03.00 p.m but she did not return back yet and she (complainant/informant) apprehended that some unknown persons seduced and abducted her. On that information, FIR crime no.556/2021 u/s 363 IPC had been registered. During investigation police recovered the prosecutrix and arrested the applicant on 04.07.2021. After investigation final report under section 363, 366, 376(3) IPC, section 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was filed against the applicant before the concerning Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been

falsely implicated in the case. It is a matter of love affair and the prosecutrix is a consenting party. He further submits that no supporting document has been filed along with the scholar register to prove the age of the prosecutrix. He is in custody since 04.07.2021. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed and statements of prosecutrix as well as mother of prosecutrix have been recorded. The trial will take time to conclude and, therefore, prays for release of the applicant on bail during trial.

In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Suresh vs. State of M.P in CRA No.1201/2015 dated 24.8.2021, Rajesh vs. State of M.P MCRC No.17695/2022 dated 13.05.2022 & Mohan Singh @ Manmohan vs. State of M.P in MCRC No.22168/2022 dated 17.05.2022 and judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Sunil vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.2308/2009 dated 04.12.2009 Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State

opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the prosecutrix has supported the case of prosecution in her statement recorded before the trial court. As per the scholar register, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15.04.2006, therefore, at the date of incident the prosecutrix was a minor, therefore, the contention of consent has no significance, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on record with regard to age of the prosecutrix and considering the fact that no definite opinion was given regarding rape in medical examination report and also considering the statement of prosecutrix recorded during investigation as well as before trial Court, photographs produced along with this bail application and the fact that the final disposal of the trial will take time, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence without commenting anything on the merit of the case the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

It is also observed that after his release on bail, if the applicant is found in

any criminal activities, the present bail order shall stand automatically cancelled without further reference to this Court; and the State/prosecution will be free to arrest the accused in the present case also.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

C.c as perrules.

(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)) V. JUDGE

Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR C G NAIR Date: 2022.06.03 16:00:00 +05'30' hk/