M.CR. C No. 7606/2012 07/11 of 2012 · Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 437(3), 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 376(2)(g)
- Constitution of India art. 21
Judgment
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondent/ State. By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Rajan @ Rajendra has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.157/2012 registered by police station Lasudiya, Indore for offence under Sections 376(2)(g) of the IPC. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Counsel has candidly admitted that this is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant; primarily because the complainant prosecutrix had turned hostile in Court and has not supported the prosecution case and the entire prosecution case has therefore, crumbled and there is no direct evidence available on record against the applicant whereas he has been arrested on 5/3/2012. Moreover to bolster his submissions, Counsel relied on Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830 to state that the object for granting bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at his trial.
It is neither punitive nor preventative and the relative factors that are to be taken into consideration are that on 2 releasing the accused would interfere with the trial or tamper with the evidence and whether detention of under trial prisoners detained in jail to an indefinite period longer than the period of detention on conviction is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant is only 22 years of age and he is in jail since 5/3/2012. Counsel for the respondent /State, on the other hand, opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the applicant was fully involved in the matter. However, he has candidly admitted that the complainant prosecutrix had turned hostile in Court. Hence, Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the application.
Operative part
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and in the light of Sanjay Chandra (supra) it is hereby allowed considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 5/3/2012. It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 3 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial. It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. C.c. as per rules. (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 437(3), 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376(2)(g); Constitution of India — art. 21.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.