Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 October, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1 MCRC No.44187/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 18th OCTORBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44187/2024
RAVI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Yadav- Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Mridula Sen- P.L./G.A. for the State.
Shri Sanjay Chouhania- Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
1] They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers.
2] This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant under
section 483 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section
439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he is implicated in
connection with Crime No.579/2022 registered at Police Station
Gandhinagar District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under
Section 354(D), 376(3), 450,506, 509 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989 and section 3/4 of THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012. The applicant is in
custody since 4/12/2022.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-10-2024
15:39:22
2 MCRC No.44187/2024
3] His third bail application was dismissed with liberty to renew
prayer if the trial is not concluded within a further period of one
month by this Court vide order dated 2.8.2024 passed in
MCRC.No.31018/2024
4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial could not
be concluded as directed by this Court within one month and as on
3.10.2024, when the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence, the
learned judge of the trial Court, on his own directed that the caste
certificate of the prosecutrix has not been produced through a
Magistrate, hence he be called to prove the caste certificate of the
prosecutrix. It is also submitted that earlier, the prosecution evidence
was closed on 28.6.2024, and it was fixed on 5.7.2024, for recording
of the accused statement under Section 313 of CRPC however, the
accused statement could be recorded only on 5.9.2024, and he (the
applicant/accused) also sought time to produce evidence, and the
matter was fixed on 11.9.2024, and on that date the defence evidence
was closed, and the matter was fixed on 23.9.2024 for final hearing.
On 23.9.2024,counsel for the applicant sought time to argue the matter
and the matter was fixed on 26.9.2024, and on 26.9.2024 again time
was sought by the applicant which was granted as a last indulgence
and the matter was fixed on 3.10.2024. However, on 26.9.2024 itself,
subsequently, the learned judge of the trial Court found that the mark
sheet of class 8th of the prosecutrix has been filed as Ex-P-1, which is
of a different school whereas, as per deposition of her mother she was
in a different school at the time when she took admission in class I,
and thus, the Court, on its own observed that since no cogent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-10-2024
15:39:22
3 MCRC No.44187/2024
documents has been filed of the school of the prosecutrix, it would be
necessary to call documents from her earlier school, and thus, the
summons were issued to the principal of the said school to appear
before the Court along with the relevant documents and the matter
was fixed on 3.10.2024. On 3.10.2024, the summons could not be
served to the said principal, hence, again the summons was issued and
the matter was fixed for 17.10.2024.
5] It is submitted that on 17.10.2024, the said witness has been
examined, and on 17.10.2024, i.e, yesterday, when the said witness
came to the Court he brought the register of class II instead of Class I,
and thus the matter has again been adjourned, and in such
circumstances, it is submitted that for one reason or the other the
matter is being adjourned from time to time by the trial Court itself,
hence, the application may be allowed as the applicant is lodged in jail
since 4.12.2022, and the final conclusion of trial is likely to take
sufficient long time.
6] Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
7] Counsel for the respondent/objector on the other hand has
vehemently opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that it was the
counsel for the applicant who had sought time for at least two
occasions to argue the matter, and thus, no case for interference is
made out as the trial is likely to be concluded within a short span time.
8] Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the case-
diary as also the certified copies of the proceedings of the trial Court,
this Court is of the considered opinion that as the trial has not
concluded within one month’s time as expected by this Court, and on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-10-2024
15:39:22
4 MCRC No.44187/2024
suo motu directions issued by the Trial Court to produce the additional
evidence, the same has been adjourned from time to time. Thus,
considering the fact that all the material witnesses have already been
examined and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 4.12.2022, and
the conclusion of the trial is not in sight, this Court is inclined to allow
the present application.
9] Accordingly, without commenting anything on merits of the matter,
the present application for grant of bail is allowed. The applicant is
directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his
appearance, as and when directed and shall also abide by the
conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973.
10] The learned judge of the trial Court is also expected to conclude
the trial as expeditiously as possible.
11] The MCRC stands allowed.
C.c. as per rules.
Sd/-
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
das/joshi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-10-2024
15:39:22