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

2021 Supreme(Raj) 50

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Sunil Joshi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Prem Singh Poonia, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.K. Bhati, P.P. and Ramdeen Choudhary, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. The present third bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 125/2019, Police Station Pipar City, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 346 & 376(2)(N) of IPC, under Sections 5(L) & 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 3(1)(W)(I) & 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the after the rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner on 10.08.2020, the statement of Mst. 'S' has been recorded before the trial court. He further submits that petitioner and Mst. 'S' were known to each other and were regularly talking on mobile phone. The fact of talking on mobile phone with the present petitioner has been accepted by Mst. 'S' in her statements before the trial court. In her statements, she further stated that she has gone with the present petitioner to Ahmedabad by public transport i.e. the bus of Pooja Travels

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