Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Kanade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36656
1 MCRC-34221-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34221 of 2024
RAHUL KANADE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Indu Pande - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rajeev Pandey - Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
This is third application filed by applicant under Section 483 of
BNSS/439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to
applicant who has been arrested relating to Crime No.162/2023 registered at
Police Station Shahjahanabad, District Bhopal for the offence punishable
under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 of IPC and Section 5L/ 6
of POCSO Act. Previous bail applications were dismissed on merits by Co-
ordinate Bench vide order dated 08.08.2023 in MCRC No.30676/2023 and
order dated 02.02.2024 in MCRC No.2264/2024 respectively.
2. As per prosecution story, it is alleged that applicant committed rape
upon the minor prosecutrix, therefore, aforesaid offences have been
registered against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecutrix is a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36656
2 MCRC-34221-2024
consenting party. Statements of prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and
her teacher (PW-3) have been recorded before the trial Court. There is no
likelihood of tampering with the witnesses. Applicant is in custody since
10.04.2023, therefore, on the ground of period of his incarceration, applicant
may be released on bail. In support of this contention, reliance has been
placed in the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sohail Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors (Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.l.) No.665/2025) and
Siddharth Bharti @ Sonu Vs. The State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.616/2025).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail
application on the ground that at the time of incident, age of the prosecutrix
was below 15 years. Prosecutrix had deposed against the applicant. His
earlier bail applications were dismissed on merits by a detailed and reasoned
orders. It is also submitted that in this case applicant has committed rape
upon the minor prosecutrix and in such type of heinous offence bail should
not be granted only on the ground of period of incarceration. Learned
counsel for the State has placed reliance in the judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Superme Court in the cases of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
& another (Criminal Appeal No.704 of 2024) and in the case of Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another (2004) 7
SCC 528. Therefore, the applicant do not deserve grant of bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as act of
present applicant, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36656
3 MCRC-34221-2024
Hence, present MCRC stands dismissed.
7. Since applicant is under custody since 10.04.2023 and trial is not
complete, it is directed that the trial Court will expedite the trial as early as
possible. The Commissioner, Bhopal is directed to ensure the presence of the
prosecution witnesses before the trial Court and the trial Court is also
directed to take steps for the presence of other prosecution witnesses.
8. Learned trial Court is also directed to send the progress report of
the trial in every three months to the Principal Registrar (Vigilance) through
the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge.
9. Principal Registrar (Vigilance) will monitor the progress of the
case.
10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial
Court, Principal Registrar (Vigilance) and Commissioner, Bhopal for
necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
shahina
