Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Veena Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 119 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Pradeep Shah, Advocate, Geeta Panpaliya, Advocate, S.K. Mehar, Advocate

Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.

Headnote:
Bail Application - Offences under IPC - Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a bail application seeking regular bail in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 384, 365, 366, 343, 376(2)(n) and 376-D of IPC. The prosecutrix was initially reported missing and later recovered by the police from another location.
Finding of the Court:

The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences, the consent of the prosecutrix, and the pendency of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's submission regarding the prosecutrix being a major and her alleged consent, as well as the absence of pending investigations against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon fulfilling certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with the FIR No. 178/2022 registered at Police Station Raniwada, District Jalore for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 365, 366, 343, 376(2)(n) and 376-D of IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a missing person report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, thereafter, she was recovered by the police from Manali, Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, her statement was recorded, in which she admitted that she went alongwith the petitioner and roamed with the petitioner at so many places. In the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix admitted that she roamed with the petitioner at so many places and during this period she did not raise any hue and cry. Counsel submits that prosecutrix was major and if anything happened that was happened with the consent of the prosecutrix. Challan of the case has been presented and no investigation is pending against the petitioner. The accused-petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

5. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Veena Ram S/o Sh. Thana Ram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 178/2022 registered at Police Station Raniwada, District Jalore provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/-each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document