Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Santoshnath – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11063 of 2022
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Bail Application - False Allegation - The court rejected the bail application of the petitioner who was arrested for offences under Sections 354A, 323 of IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, citing specific allegations by the victim against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after being arrested in connection with FIR No.40/2022 for offences under Sections 354A, 323 of IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act. The petitioner claimed false allegation and the trial was expected to take a long time.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the bail application, considering the specific allegation by the victim against the petitioner, who was the father of the victim.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the specific allegation by the victim against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the age of the victim and the specific allegation against the petitioner in rejecting the bail application.
Final Decision: The bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the court.
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 FIR No.40/2022 of Police Station Surpalia, for the offence punishable under Sections 354A, 323 of IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner and challan of the case has been presented. The petitioner is in the judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently 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 opposed the prayer for bail.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the record.
5. The victim was merely 17 years of age at the time of incident and according to the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner, who is a father of victim, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.
6. In the above circumstances, the bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby rejected.
The specific allegation of forcing the victim into prostitution influenced the court's decision in rejecting the bail application.
The court established that bail can be granted when the allegations do not substantiate the charges and when the trial is expected to be lengthy, ensuring the rights of the accused are protected.
The court has the discretion to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The court may grant bail considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court established that prolonged custody without trial can warrant the granting of bail, particularly when similar accused have been released, emphasizing the importance of the right to liberty.
The court upheld the principle that serious allegations of sexual offenses, particularly those involving non-consent, are sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
