SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Raj) 1175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina, J.
Afzal Bi W/o Saimuddin B/c Musalman & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6775 of 2017
Decided On : 22-05-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Mohd. Iqbal Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Pareek, P.P.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 11(5) (12), 17, ¾ - Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 366, 376, 343 – Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3 – Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. registered at Police Station Chhipa Barod, District Baran (Raj.) for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 343 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 11(5) (12), 17, 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Held, Learned State Counsel on the other hand, has opposed the petition – Petition is disposed of with a direction that in case petitioners surrender before the trial court within 10 days from today, they be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the said court. – Bail Granted

ORDER :

Mrs. Sabina, J.

1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 219/2013 registered at Police Station Chhipa Barod, District Baran (Raj.) for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 343 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 11(5) (12), 17, 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the sister of co-accused Raju @ Raees. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law of petitioner No. 2. Allegation against the petitioners is that they had allowed co accused Raja @ Raees to stay in their house along with the prosecutrix. Co-accused Raja @ Raees and Sanu @ Mohd. Sanu had faced the trial and have been acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 13.7.2015, as the prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution story. Petitioners are ladies and are ready to surrender before the trial court.

3. Learned State Counsel on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction that in case petitioners surrender before the trial court within 10 days from today, they be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the said court.

Bail Granted As Above.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top