SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinay Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2018

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

MCRC-43989-2018
(VINAY YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

1

Jabalpur, dated: 15.11.2018
Shri Priyank Khandelwal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri G.P. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Prosecutrix along with her father Shri Imratlal Yadav is
present in person. They are duly identified by the counsel for the
applicant. Their presence be marked.

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.89/2018 registered by Police
Station Dolariya, District Hoshangabad under Section 363, 366
and 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 10.06.2018 the
prosecutrix, aged about 17 years 8 months had been disappeared
from her house, situated at Village Taalnagri under the
jurisdiction of Police Station Dolariya, District Hoshangabad.
The report of the incident was lodged by father of the
prosecutrix Imratlal Yadav on 12.06.2018. On that basis offence
under Section 363 of IPC has been registered under Crime
No.89/2018. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix
was recovered on 08.09.2018. She was examined. She narrated
that she was in love with the applicant. She does not want to go
with the applicant but the applicant along with his friend Rahul
has taken her from her house forcefully and during the period
when she was with applicant, the applicant committed
intercourse with her forcefully. Later on, Sections 366 and 376
(2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 15/11/2018 03:50:34
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

MCRC-43989-2018
(VINAY YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

2

of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have been added in
the crime.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been
implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that the
prosecutrix herself went with the applicant; therefore, no offence
of abduction is made out against him. The prosecutrix in her
statements stated that she wants to marry with the applicant. It is
also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the
address described in the application. He is ready to furnish
adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions
imposed upon him. There is no chance of his absconding or
tampering with the evidence. It is also submitted that the
applicant is a young youth of 21 years and has been in custody
since 09.09.2018. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been
made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State
on the other hand has opposed the bail application.

Prosecutrix along with her father Imratlal Yadav are
present before this Court and have submitted that she wants to
marry with the applicant and she has no objection if the
applicant may be released on bail. Her father has also supported
her version. Learned counsel for the applicant has identified the
prosecutrix and her father Imratlal Yadav.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in
their entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned
counsel for the applicant and looking to the contention of
prosecutrix and her father, in the opinion of this Court, the
applicant deserves to be released on bail.

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 15/11/2018 03:50:34
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

MCRC-43989-2018
(VINAY YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

3

Consequently, this first application for bail under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of
applicant-Vinay Yadav, stands allowed.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in
the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated
under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Mohd. Fahim Anwar)
Judge
taj.

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 15/11/2018 03:50:34

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation