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) 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Jitendra Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7412 of 2023
Decided On : 07-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Chaudhary with Mr. D.D. Khandelwal.
For the State : Mr. Babulal Nasuna, PP.
For the Complainant :Mr. Harshit Sharma, Advocate.

Bail applications under Section 439 require careful consideration of the gravity of the offence and the risk of influencing witnesses, especially in serious cases involving sexual offences.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Accused-applicant arrested under FIR No. 118/2023 for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Section 67A of I.T. Act - Arguments presented regarding false implication and inconclusive medical evidence - Opposing counsel highlighted overwhelming evidence, including hotel records and obscene materials - Court found prima facie evidence established and denied bail. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Bail considerations - Gravity of offence and risk of influencing witnesses are key factors in denying bail application. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The bail application was filed by a 55-year-old accused-applicant with no criminal antecedents, arrested in connection with serious charges, alleging false implication related to a land/financial dispute.

Findings of Court:
The court found that prima facie evidence justified the denial of bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and potential witness tampering.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the FIR and the strength of the evidence against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the gravity of the offence and the risk of influencing witnesses justified the denial of bail, without commenting on the merits of the case.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

ORDER :

(Sameer Jain, J.)

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 118/2023 registered at Police Station Jalupura District Jaipur City North and charge-sheeted for the offence(s) under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 67a of I.T. Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who is aged about 55 years with no criminal antecedents, is the primary bread-earner for his family, is falsely implicated in the present matter. The FIR was also filed with a delay of over a month and was only filed to settle the land/financial dispute pending between the parties, who are also related to each other. It is contended that the medical is also inconclusive and does not suggest commission of the alleged offence. Without prejudice to his other arguments, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since investigation in the matter is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, further incarceration of the applicants till conclusion of trial, which is likely to take long, is not required.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted that the overwhelming evidence procured, including the hotel record, the pendrive containing obscene photos/videos of the victim, points to the active involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence as alleged. It is further highlighted that the applicant, on previous occasions, have been restrained under Sections 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is a strong chance that he may attempt to influence witnesses/evidence, thereby prejudicing trial.

4. Heard and considered.

5. Considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, considering the gravity of offence; the evidence on record; the recovery of obscene photos; that offence under Section 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000 are prima facie made out, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to allow the present bail application at this stage.

6. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.

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