Omprakash vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This fourth / repeat application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the applicant, who is implicated in connection

with Crime No.59/2019 registered at Police Station Industrial Area Jaora, District Ratlam (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (d), 354

and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Section 5 read with Section 6 and Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and also under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The applicant is in custody since 31.01.2019.

As per prosecution case, on 24.01.2019 five girls were missing from Kundan Kutir Bal Aadhram, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP). An inquiry was

conducted into the matter by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaora, District Ratlam; and inquiry report dated 30th January, 2019 was submitted to the

Collector, District Ratlam. Thereafter, on the basis of letter No.492/Reader-1/19 Jaora, dated 31.01.2019 issued from the Office of Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Jaora, District Ratlam to the Station House Officer, Police Station Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP) for registration of offence

against (1) Smt. Rachana Bhartiya, President, Bal Sanrakshan Samiti, (2) Omprakash Bhartiya (Raju) [husband of Smt. Rachna Bhartiya], (3)

Sandesh Jain, President, Kundan Welfare Society and (4) Dilip Barriya, Secretary, Kundan Welfare Society, regarding missing of five girls on

24.01.2019 from Kundan Kutir Aadhram. Hence, the present case has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present

crime. It is further submitted that the victims have already been examined before the trial Court; and they have not stated anything against the present

applicant regarding sexual exploitation. Other prosecution witnesses have also been examined before the trial Court, but they have not made any

allegation against the applicant regarding sexual assault on any of the victim / prosecutrix. Under these circumstances, offence regarding sexual

exploitation alleged against the applicant is not made out. The applicant is in custody since 31.01.2019. There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or

tempering the evidence, if enlarged on bail. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Under these changed circumstances, learned counsel

for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the bail application by contending that no sufficient ground is

made out for releasing the applicant on bail; hence he prayed for rejection of the application.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the

merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his / her furnishing a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his / her

regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he / she shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and

shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy, as per rules.