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

2021 Supreme(Raj) 268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Inderjeet Singh, J.
Deepak Malav@deepu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 430/2021
Decided on : 20-01-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka, for the Appellant; Mr. S.K. Mahla, PP, for the Respondent.

Headnote:

Bail Application - False Implication - The court allowed the bail application considering the period of custody and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was arrested for offences under Sections 363, 376 of IPC, Section 3, 4 of POCSO Act, Section 363, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 5L/6 of POCSO, and Section 67 of I.T. Act. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated, stating that the victim and petitioner are students known to each other for a long time, and the age of the prosecutrix is yet to be determined during trial. The F.I.R was lodged after a delay of one year, and the petitioner had been in custody since 15.09.2020.

Finding of the Court:

The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, allowed the bail application, considering the material on record, the facts and circumstances of the case, and the period of custody.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged false implication, delay in lodging the F.I.R, and the period of custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the period of custody and the petitioner's claim of false implication, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to regular bail, subject to satisfaction of the trial Court.

JUDGMENT

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 269/2020 Registered at Police Station Dadabari, District Kota for the offence(s) under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and under Section 3, 4 of POCSO Act (in F.I.R) & under Section 363, 376(2)(n) of IPC and under Section 5L/6 of POCSO and Section 67 of I.T. Act (in Order)

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that petitioner and victim are students and are known to each other for quite long time. Counsel further submits that she travelled with the petitioner to so many places. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the age of the prosecutrix is yet to be determined during trial. Counsel further submits that the F.I.R has been lodged after a delay of one year. Counsel further submits that challan has already been presented in the court and conclusion of trial may take long time. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2020.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

4. Considering the material on record and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of custody and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to regular bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court, office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax, for necessary compliance.

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 Back to top