AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Verma, J
Learned Pl informs that notice has duly been served upon the prosecutrix.
This is the second application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to FIR No 706/2022 registered at P.S- Rau, Indore for the offence under sections 376(A)(B), 376(2)(n) of IPC and sections 3, 4, 5-L/6 and 5M / 6 of POCSO Act and sections 3(2)(va), 3(2) (v), 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC & ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2/ As per prosecution story, on 01/09/2022, the prosecutrix went to the shop of present applicant for purchasing some articles, at that time, present applicant took her inside the shop and committed molestation with the prosecutrix. At that time, neighbour of the prosecutrix came there and saw the incident. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to the complainant, then the complainant lodged FIR against the applicant. Accordingly, the aforementioned offence was registered and he was arrested.
3/ Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. Applicant is in custody since 03/09/2022. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Prosecutrix and her mother both are material witnesses have been examined and they did not support support the case of the prosecution in their cross-examination. Applicant is 57 years old person having no criminal antecedent. FIR is one day belated. Final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time. Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on bail.
4/ Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent – State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection,
5/ Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case dairy. 6/ Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the fact that prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief narrated about the overact of molestation done by the applicant, but in cross-examination, she categorically stated that the applicant had only caught her hand and except this, nothing has been done by the applicant; she narrated the same thing to her mother; mother of prosecutrix (PW-2) in para 4 of her cross-examination also admits that her daughter/prosecutrix narrated that the applicant had caught hold of her hand and except that, nothing had been done by the applicant; their neighbour (PW-3) also turned hostile; in view of the aforesaid changed circumstance and the period of jail incarceration of the applicant, I deem it proper to release the accused / applicant on bail.
7/ Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court, as and when required.
8/ He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C., Certified copy, as per Rules.