Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1396
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Balram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2854 of 2022
Decided On : 22-03-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.363, S.366, S.376(n)
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT : S.5(l), S.6
Headnote
Bail Application - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - The court grants bail to the petitioner in a case involving offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(N) IPC, Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner has filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(N) IPC, Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO act. The petitioner claims that the prosecutrix had willingly stayed with him and any actions were with her consent. The prosecution opposes the bail application. The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, grants bail to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
Ratio Decidendi:
Result:
Bharat Shrimali, Advocate, Anita Gehlot, Advocate, Sudhir Saruparia, Advocate, Jayant Mahecha, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.81/2021, Police Station Sadar, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(N) IPC, Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has deposed that she roamed with the petitioner at many places such as Jawra, Ratlam etc. The prosecutrix further stated that she also resided with the petitioner at Surat in a rented room for about eight months at her own free will and during which period she did not raise any hue or cry. If anything happened, it was with the consent of prosecutrix. Challan of the case has already been presented. The petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the material available on record.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.
6. accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Balram @ Ballu @ Pradeep S/o Shri Lala Ram shall be enlarged on bail in F.I.R. No.81/2021, Police Station Sadar, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
