✦ Madhya Pradesh High Court

Criminal Case No. 2054 of 2022 · Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and

Provisions considered

Judgment

Between:- PANNALAL S/O SHRI LAKHPATI , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER, CASTE MARAR R/O VILLAGE KATANGJHARI LALBARRA P.S. WARASEONI DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH) TEHSIL SMT. ASHABAI W/O SHRI PANNALAL , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O VILLAGE KATANGJHARI P.S. WARASEONI TEHSIL LALBARRA DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI PRAVESH NAVERIA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS) .....APPLICANTS AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH (MADHYA P.S. WARASEONI BALAGHAT PRADESH) VICTIM A S/O NOT MENTION THR. P.S. WARASEONI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS BY SHRI VINOD MISHRA, LEARNED P.L. FOR THE RESPONDENT / STATE NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DESPITE COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 439(1) (A) OF Cr.P.C. BY THE STATE (Heard through Video Conferencing) This M.Cr.C. coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: Heard with the aid of case diary. ORDER This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Applicant No.1 Pannalal and applicant No.2 Smt. Ashabai were arrested on

30.12.2021 in connection with Crime No.498/2021 registered at Police Station Waraseoni, Distt. Balaghat (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Signature Not Verified SAN Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 51, 6R/w Section SARATHE 16, 17 of POCSO Act. 2 As per prosecution story, on 27.10.2021 co-accused Shailendra Nageshwar son of applicants abducted the prosecutrix who was minor and took her to his house where he kept her for three days and sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage. It is alleged that applicants were also involved in the crime. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no allegation against the applicants that they abducted the prosecutrix or they instigated co-accused Shailendra Nageshwar to abduct the prosecutrix or to commit rape with her. Even in the case diary statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the investigation officer under section 161 of Cr.P.C. prosecutrix did not depose anything against the applicants. For the first time prosecutrix deposed against the applicants when JMFC recorded her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. Applicants have been in custody since 30.12.2021, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicants be released on bail. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of learned counsel for the applicants and the fact that the applicants are the parents of the co-accused Shailendra Nageshwar, they are in custody since

30.12.2021, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that Applicant No.1 Pannalal and applicant No.2 Smt. Ashabai be released on bail upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with separate surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/trial Court for their appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following Signature Not Verified SAN SARATHE conditions by the applicants : 3

#1. The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;

#2. The applicants will cooperate in the trial;

#3. The applicants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court;

#4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;

#5. The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

#6. The applicants will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. Certified copy as per rules. sarathe (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified SAN SAN SARATHE SARATHE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 161, 164, 439, 439(1)(A); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madhya Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Case No. 2054 of 2022). ← Search more judgments