Vinod vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

They are heard. Perused case diary / challan papers. This second application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by

applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime No.714/2019 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Mandsaur, District Mandsaur (MP) for

offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (1), 328, 506 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

The applicant is in custody since 28.12.2019.

As per prosecution case, on 03.12.2019 the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station City Kotwali, Mandsaur, District Mandsaur (MP) alleging that

on 01.012.2019 while she was alone at her home, co-accused person namely Sonu @ Pushkar s/o Durgamal Kumawat came to her house and took

her on his motorcycle for a trip. Thereafter, he took her to Hotel Nandan, in front of Post Office at Mandsaur, where she was offered to drink some

liquid, due to which she became unconscious and then Sonu committed rape upon her. He also threatened her to viral her photographs. Hence, the

case has been registered against the present applicant on the ground that he is the Manager of the aforesaid Hotel.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a young boy aged about 19 years and is not having any criminal record. There is

no allegation against applicant regarding abduction or commission of rape with the prosecutrix. It is alleged that the applicant is the Manager of Hotel

Nandan, Mandsaur and he provided room to the co-accused Sonu @ Pushkar without obtaining any identity proof and he has also not made any entry

regarding his stay with the prosecutrix in the Register of the Hotel. However, there is nothing on record that the present applicant was aware with the

fact that co-accused Sonu @ Pushkar took the prosecutrix forcefully and in these circumstances, at the most offence under Section 188 of IPC will

be made out against the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 28.12.2019. Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn

vide order dated 14.01.2020 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1150/2020 granting liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the

charge sheet. Now, the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the

evidence, if enlarged on bail. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Under these 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.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand 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.