Libertatem Magazine

Madhya Pradesh HC: Inconsistency in FIR, Prosecutor’s Story Clubbed With No Evidence Causes the Alleged Rapist to Be Released on Bail.

Contents of this Page


As the rape charge was levelled on a later stage and no injury to the body of the prosecutrix was found, the applicant was released on bail.

Brief facts-

The prosecution states that the prosecutrix- a widow was working in the field on 25.09.2020 when the applicant came from behind, grabbed her and then raped her. The present application was filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code in respect of Crime No.598/2020 for allegedly committing an offence under Sections 354, 354(A)(1), 506 and 376 of Indian Penal Code.

Arguments before the Court

The learned advocate Shri A.K. Saxena for the applicant submitted before the Honourable Court that in the FIR filed at Police Station Sendhwa, District Barwani, the prosecutrix only mentioned that the applicant grabbed her from behind after which the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix came causing the applicant to run away after threatening the prosecutrix. 

Only on 3.10.2020, the allegation of rape was levelled on the applicant by the prosecutrix. Hence due to this discrepancy, the learned counsel submitted that the applicant should be granted bail.

The Public Prosecutor Shri Sagar Muley for the non-applicant- State submitted before the Honourable Court that the applicant had committed rape upon the prosecutrix when she was doing her work out in the field.

Court’s Observations

Regard was paid to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. The MLC report which showed that there was no injury suffered by the prosecutrix was considered.  

Court’s Decision

In the light of the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant, the Court allowed the present bail application, administering that the applicant- Buduriya S/o Tursingh Barela will be released on the bail subject to the consideration of him furnishing a personal bond in the form of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one local solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Committal Court instead of him regularly appearing before the Trial Court/Committal Court on all dates of hearing.

The Court also directed that the applicant will have to abide by all of the conditions mentioned under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has also been made clear that the applicant, after having been released shall not influence, threaten or promise the prosecutrix in any manner and will also not establish any sort of contact with any of the other witnesses and any violation of this proviso would ultimately lead to the cancellation of bail without reference to this Court.

Click here to read Judgement is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author