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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
VINODNATH S/O SHRI BANNANATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB 17208/2021



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17208/2021

Vinodnath S/o Shri Bannanath, Aged About 23 Years, R/o

Kalbeliya Ki Dhani, Pronheda (Ramkhede), P.s. Kekri, Dist.

Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

09/11/2021

1.

The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner

who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.98/2021

registered at Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer for the offence(s)

under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376 (2) (n) of IPC. and Section

3/4, 5 (L)/6 of POCSO Act.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

prosecutrix had eloped with the petitioner and remained for more

than five-six months. Both lived together at different places. They

took a rented house and lived there as husband and wife. They

used to go for labouring for their livelihood. She left the house of

her parents on 30.02.2021 and were apprehended on 14.07.2021.

In the meantime, she made no complain to anyone.

3.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application stating that the matter pertains to the sexual abuses of

(2 of 2)

[CRLMB-17208/2021]

a minor and comes within the purview of POCSO Act., therefore,

the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

4.

Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the

parties and the case diary more, particularly the statement of the

prosecutrix, the period they lived together, the statement of one

landlord-Satya Narain where the petitioner and the prosecutirx

lived together; without expressing any opinion on the merits of

the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

5.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner -

Vinodnath S/o Shri Bannanath shall be enlarged on bail

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 do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J

TN/50

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top