ANIL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per prosecution, father of the prosecutrix has lodged a complaint on 24.02.2017 that her daughter was missing and has taken some ornaments along with her. The prosecutrix, a minor was handed over by the mother and sister of the main accused after two years.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that she went along with Sunil and has taken a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and jewellery of her sister from her home. She has further stated that apart from Sunil no one was with them. In the Auto, Sunil has given her water to drink after which she become unconscious. When she gained consciousness at Jhansi, she was informed by Sunil that they were going to Gujrat, Delhi and thereafter to Gwalior. In her statement she has never taken name of the present applicant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore he may be released on bail.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for rejection of the same. It is submitted that the present applicant is a family member of the main accused who has abducted the minor prosecutrix. He was having knowledge regarding the incident. Referring to the 161 Cr.P.C . statement of mother of prosecutrix, it is pointed out that when the parents of the complainant went to the house of Sunil to search for their daughter, the mother of Sunil told them that they have knowledge that Sunil has taken away their daughter and told them to do whatever they want.