MAYANK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is first application filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 30/8/2023 in connection with Crime No.218/2023 registered at Police Station Pohari, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC and Sec. 3/4 of POCSO Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant and minor prosecutrix aged about 17 years were known to each other. On 29/8/2023 at about 10:00 hours when the complainant was going towards coaching at that time the applicant met her and gave a chocolate and prosecutrix after consuming the same became unconscious. Thereafter, the applicant took her to the house of Nandkishore Tiwari and committed rape upon her.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He further submits that the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident. Prior to the incident, the applicant and prosecutrix solemnized marriage infront of prosecutrix's mother and uncle, about which a Panchnama was prepared. Learned counsel for the applicant in supports of his contention has submitted the photographs of applicant and prosecutrix, copy of whatsapp chat and the aforesaid Panchnama. No offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 30/8/2023. His custodial interrogation or trial is not required in the matter. Trial will take time for its conclusion. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the application and submitted that the prosecurtix, her mother and uncle did not sign the Panchnama submitted by learned counsel for the applicant. The prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. The offences alleged against the applicant are serious in nature. Therefore, he be not released on bail. Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, specially the evidence produced on record with regard to the age of the prosecutrix and also considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.