SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tikku vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2018

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-39883-2018
(TIKKU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

1

Jabalpur, dated: 13.11.2018
Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A.N. Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Shri H.R. Naidu, learned counsel for the objector.
Case diary is available.

Heard on this first application for bail under section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant
in connection with Crime No.683/2017 registered by Police
Station Damoh Dehat, District Damoh for the offence under
Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 5/6 and 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.

The case of the prosecution is that, the prosecutrix used to
reside with complainant Mullu Singh Rajgond, who is the real
uncle (Taya) of the prosecutrix. On 09.12.2017 she was
disappeared from her uncle’s house situated at Village Bhorasa
under the jurisdiction of Police Station Damoh Dehat, District
Damoh. Complainant Mullu Singh lodged a report of the
incidence on 15.12.2017 against the applicant for the offence
under Section 363 of IPC on the ground that the applicant was
also missing from the village since 09.12.2017, i.e. the date by
which prosecutrix had been disappeared. On 05.07.2018
prosecutrix was recovered by the Police; and later on, handed
over to her parents. Her medical examination was conducted and
her statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and 164, Cr.P.C. have
been recorded. On the basis of that, offence under Sections 366
and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5/6 and 3/4 of
the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have
been added in the crime.

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 13/11/2018 21:03:56
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-39883-2018
(TIKKU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

2

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely
implicated in the crime. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix
in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. has stated
that she had gone with the applicant on her own will and desire.
It is further submitted that from the perusal of the medical
report, no external or internal injury has been found on the
person of the prosecutrix. The doctor has also not given any
opinion regarding rape with the prosecutrix. It is further
submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the
address shown in the application. There is no chance of his
absconding or tampering with the witnesses. He is ready to
furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and
conditions which may be imposed upon him. It is also submitted
that the applicant has been in custody since 05.07.2018;
therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on
bail.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State
on the other hand has vehemently opposed the bail application
and prays for dismissal of the same.

On perusal of the case diary, it seems that in the school
record of the prosecutrix the date of birth of the prosecutrix is
mentioned as 07.09.2001, as such her age at the date of
incidence comes to be 16 years 3 months 2 days. The
prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C.
does not seems to support the prosecution case, but looking to
the FIR, statements of her parents and her statement recorded
under Section 161, Cr.P.C. it seems that she has not only been
abducted at the age of 16 years but also sexually assaulted by
the present applicant during the period of her companionship
with the applicant.

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 13/11/2018 21:03:56
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-39883-2018
(TIKKU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

3

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
the case in their entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by
the learned Government Advocate and having regard to the
gravity of offence, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case
to grant bail to the applicant-Tikku.

Consequently, this first application for bail under section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of
applicant, stands dismissed.

(Mohd. Fahim Anwar)
Judge
taj.

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 13/11/2018 21:03:56

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh