Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5857
1 MCRC-52000-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52000 of 2024
RAJARAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Yadav - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vinod Thakur -Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Ms Aditi Mehta - Advocate for the objector.
ORDER
This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail in connection
with Crime No.712/2024 registered at Police Station - Kannod, District
Dewas(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 143(4), 296,
74, 75(1)(i), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. Applicant
is in judicial custody since 20.10.2024.
As per the case of prosecution, Rajaram enticed and taken victim aged
around 17 years from her parental home at Olamba to his house at Burut.
Rajaram (applicant) had promised Rahul, a bride and taken Rs.50,000/- from
him. On 06.10.2024, Rajaram took victim to the house of Rahul. Rahul
molested the victim and took some photographs with her. Thereafter, the
victim returned to her parental home on 08.10.2024. When her father started
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5857
2 MCRC-52000-2024
searching bridegroom for the victim, Rahul forwarded photographs of the
victim to her father. Rajaram and Sandeep threatened to abduct the victim
and abused the father of victim. On such allegations, P.S. Kannod, District
Dewas(M.P.) registered FIR for the offence punishable under
Sections 137(2), 96, 143(4), 296, 74, 75(1)(i), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 7/8
of POCSO Act against Rajaram, Rahul and Sandeep. Later, on the basis of
statement of Rajaram and other accused, Ravi was also implicated.
Applicant - Rajaram was arrested on 20.10.2024. He is in custody ever since.
On completion of investigation, final report was submitted. Trial is
underway.
Learned Counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submits that applicant is falsely implicated in
this matter. It is a case of teenage romance between adolescents. Learned
counsel further referring to evidence of father of victim (PW-1 and victim
(PW-2), submits that they did not support the prosecution, rather, exonerated
the applicant of the alleged offence. Applicant is aged 42 years and he is a
labourer by profession. Co-accused Ravi and Rahul have been extended the
benefit of bail vide orders dated 18.11.2024 & 11.02.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
No. 48046/2024 & M.Cr.C. No. 52516/2024. The trial would take time to
conclude. Therefore, applicant may be extended the benefit of bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State ably assisted by
learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application on the ground of
gravity of alleged offence and cites criminal history of one case of similar
nature.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5857
3 MCRC-52000-2024
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has
been acquitted in the matter vide judgment dated 22.09.2018 passed in S.T.
No. 303/2018.
Learned counsel for the objector pleads no objection to grant of
bail.
Heard the arguments, perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in
the application and the case diary.
The case diary and the material on record reveal that the applicant is
implicated on the basis of allegation with regard to kidnapping the victim
and handing her over to the accused -Rahul. There is no allegation of
molestation on the applicant. The victim and her father did not support the
prosecution in their evidence before trial Court. As per the information given
by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is aged around 42 years
and is a labourer by profession. He is sole bread earner of his family.
Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from
justice. In absence of any substantial criminal past and previous conviction
for any major offence, considering the socio-economic status of the
applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with remaining
evidence by the applicant. The trial would take time to conclude. There
appears to be no compelling reason to continue incarceration of the
applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for present
application only.
Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5857
4 MCRC-52000-2024
case, in the light of aforesaid facts, but without commenting on the merits,
this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, present
application is allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that applicant - Rajaram shall be released
on bail in connection with the crime as stated in para-1 of this order, upon
furnishing personal bond and surety bond of amount, as may be considered
appropriate by the Trial Court for compliance with conditions, as may be
imposed by such Court under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. 1973/ Section 480(3)
of BNSS, 2023, to secure presence of the applicant for the trial.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of
breach of any of the preconditions of bail, the Trial Court may consider, on
merit, cancellation of bail without any impediment of this order.
The concerned Court shall get the conditions reproduced on the
personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If
any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained
the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
