[2023:RJ-JD:36448]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 12640/2023

Rakesh @ Dhanraj Vaishnav S/o Govind Vaishnav, Aged About 29

Years, R/o Malikhera Ps Mandal Dist. Bhilwara

(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Bhilwara)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.

Govind Lal S/o Banshi Lal Daroga, R/o Mali Khera Mandal

Dist. Bhilwara

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr.Rakesh Matoria.

Mr.Vikas Kumar Bishnoi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr.S.S.Rajpurohit, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

ORDER

20/10/2023

This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection

with FIR No.230/2022 registered at Police Station Mandal, District

Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 363, 342, 354, 354-A IPC,

9(M)/10, 11/12 of POCSO Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having

considered

the rival submissions facts and

circumstances of the case and the statements of the prosecutrix

(PW-1) and the eye-witness of the case Rinku Vaishnu (PW-6),

this Court prima facie finds that the allegation against the present

petitioner is that on 28.5.2022 at around 11 am, he undressed the

minor prosecutrix and molested her. The incident was seen by

Rinku Vaishnav (PW-6) who is the eye witness of the incident and

[2023:RJ-JD:36448]

(2 of 2)

[CRLMB-12640/2023]

also the real sister of the petitioner. The statements of the

prosecutrix (PW-1) and Rinku Vaishnav (PW-6) have been

recorded before competent criminal court wherein, the prosecutrix

has maintained the allegations against the petitioner whereas the

sole eye-witness (PW-6) has turned hostile but in view of the fact

that she is sister of the present petitioner and an interested

witness, this Court does not find any force in the submission of

learned counsel for the petitioner that the statements of the eye-

witness (PW-6) creates doubt about the truthfulness of the story

narrated by prosecutrix in her statments recorded before

competent criminal court as PW-1 and under various provisions of

Cr.P.C.

Looking to the seriousness of the accusations; age difference

between the petitioner and the prosecutrix; the fact that the

prosecutrix has maintained her allegations and has clearly

identified the petitioner as the assailant during her court

statements as PW-1 on 26.9.2023, this Court is not inclined to

enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations

made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail

application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

/tarun goyal/-