Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nepal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53357 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NEPAL S/O SHRI KHARAGJIT DHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER LABOUR, R/O VILLAGE
KANAKHEDI, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL POHARI,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI BASANT RAJ PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION DEVENDRA NAGAR, DISTRICT
PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM A D/O NOT MENTION R/O NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI B.K. UPADHYAY - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail relating to FIR
No.75/2021 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar,
District Panna, for the offence under Sections 363, 366A, 343, 344, 368, 354,
370, 372, 373, 376, 376(d) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5(G)/6 and 7/8
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 3(2)(v),
3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(1)(10)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The applicant is in jail since 22.10.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant after
registration of offence remained absconding and got arrested on 22.10.2023 but
prior to his arrest, trial in respect of other accused persons has been concluded
and all of them have been acquitted. Copy of the judgment in relation to other
co-accused persons is on record and from perusal of the judgment and
observation made by the trial Court, it is clear that the prosecutrix did not
support the case of prosecution and refused to identify any of the accused
persons who were before the Court. On the basis of the statement of the
witnesses in including the prosecutrix, the trial Court finally acquitted the other
persons holding that the witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the
case of prosecution. There were three accused persons acquitted, but the
present applicant was not there during trial, therefore, a separate trial would be
conducted against him. Although, he submits that in view of the statement of the
witnesses and the judgment passed by the trial Court, keeping the present
applicant in jail, would be of no use. He submits that the present applicant had
no knowledge about registration of offence. He submits that the present
applicant was at Delhi and remained there for their livelihood and was not aware
of registration of offence.
3. On the other hand, the counsel for the State has opposed the submission
made by the counsel for the applicant and submitted that merely because other
accused persons acquitted does not mean that the present applicant would also
be acquitted because fresh evidence would be recorded and at this stage, it
cannot be presumed that the witnesses will not support the case of prosecution.
4. Considering the submission made by the counsel for the parties and after
perusal of material available on record, I am inclined to consider and allow this
bail application. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, this application is allowed.
5. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with
one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
concerned for his appearance on the dates given by it.
6. On being released on bail, the applicant shall abide by the conditions
enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
