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

2023 Supreme(Raj) 725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Sheru Khan S/o Deen Mohammad - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 48 of 2023
Decided on : 11-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Ratna Ram, Mr.Bhima Ram
For the Respondent: Mr.Mool Singh, P.P.

Headnote:

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A(2), 3(1)(w)(ii) and (2)(v) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366A, 376(3), (2)(N) - Grant of Bail - Promise of marrying – Offence of Rape - Appeal has been filed by appellant against order whereby bail application filed by appellant has been rejected – Held, Appellant who is aged about 20 years is in judicial custody; statements of prosecutrix have already been recorded before competent criminal court, therefore, there is no any apprehension of she being influenced by appellant, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of case, this Court is of opinion that appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail - Order passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases is set aside and it is ordered that accused-appellant shall be enlarged on bail – Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Balotra in Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.262/2022, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.229/2022 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Barmer, for offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376(3), 376(2)(N) of IPC and Sections 5(I)/6, 11(IV)/12 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who is aged about 20 years developed consensual sexual relationship with the prosecutrix. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before competent criminal court as P.W.1, learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix in her statements has stated that accused-appellant developed physical relation with her by making false promise of marrying her. Learned counsel further submitted that statements of the prosecutrix have already been recorded before competent criminal court, therefore, there is no apprehension of the appellant influencing the prosecutrix or tampering with any material evidence.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case so also the fact that the appellant who is aged about 20 years is in judicial custody since 29.6.2022; statements of the prosecutrix have already been recorded before competent criminal court, therefore, there is no any apprehension of she being influenced by the appellant, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is allowed. The order dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Balotra is set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellant-Sheru Khan S/o Deen Mohammad shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.229/2022 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Barmer, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-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 so.

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