Dismissed

Amit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2016CRLMB/15225/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petitioner's request. The petitioner was arrested for offenses including extortion and attempts against modesty, and the POCSO Act was invoked. The court, noting the serious nature of the crime against a minor, denied bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC was dismissed.

Amit Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15225/2015 Amit Kumar vs State Date of Order :: 8/1/2016

¶2

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶3

Mr.VK Sharma for the petitioner(s) Ms Meenakshi Pareek PP for the State

¶4

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC.

¶5

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.366/2015 was lodged at Police Station Kotwali Tonk for the offence under Sections 384,385,354 ( C )(D) IPC, whereupon the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested. He moved the bail application before the court below, which was dismissed on 7/12/2015. Hence, this bail application has been filed.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR has been lodged after a period of three months of the occurrence. There are civil cases pending in between the parties. The petitioner is in judicial lock up since long and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. He further submits that the petitioner and complainant are in relation of brother and sister. Hence he should be released on bail.

¶7

On the other hand learned PP opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has committed an offence on a minor girl. Petitioner has prepared video clipping of the complainant to defame her. She further submitted that POCSO Act has also been added. She further submitted that complainant has also given statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C in which she has stated each and every fact and such type of person is not entitled for bail.

¶8

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶9

While dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk observed as under:

¶10

"उभय पक� क� तक� पर मनन ककय� एव� अन�स�ध�न पत�वल� क� अवल�कन ककय�। अन�स�ध�न पत�वल� क� अवल�कन स� सपष ह कक प�र#-अभभय�क प&ड(त� अप�पवय ब�भलक� प+ज� च.धर� न� अपन� ध�र� 164 ज�.फ�. क� बय�न म0 यह वयक ककय� ह कक प�र#-अभभय�क न� प&ड(त� क2 नह�त& ह�ई क2 अपन� म�ब�ईल स� अश&ल तसव&र0 ख0च& और उनह0 प&ड(त� क� द9ख�कर, इन;रन�; पर (�लन� क2 धमक2 9�कर प&ड(त� स� ल�ख� रपय� व ज�वर�त ल� भलय�, प&ड(त� क� धमक�य� व उसक� स�र अश&ल हरकत0 क2। अभ& पकरण म0 गहन एव� सघन अन�स�ध�न ल�बबत ह , इस सतर पर म�मल� क2 गहर�ई म0 ज�कर ग�ण 9�ष पर मत वयक ककय� ज�न� उचचत नह�� ह�ग�। ककनत� जजस पक�र एक अप�पवय ब�भलक� क� नह�त& ह�ई क� अश&ल फ�;� जDलप बन�कर, उस� इन;रन�; पर (�लन� क2 धमक2 9�कर भ�र� म�त� म0 र�भE व ज�वर�त ल� ज�न� क� तथय समक आय� हH, उनक� पक�E म0 म�र� ववनम मत म0 प�र#-अभभय�क क� जम�नत क� ल�भ द9य� ज�न� उचचत पत&त नह�� ह�त� ह ।"

¶11

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I do not deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶12

Consequently the bail application is dismissed.

¶13

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA), J.

¶14

om35

¶15

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being E-mailed.

¶16

Om Prakash

¶17

Amit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banshi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kapilesh Dangi and Ors. Vs State Education Departmentors

Devendra Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Parveen Kumar @ Dabbu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shyamlal Agarwal Vs Surya Prakash Badaya

Bharat Beniwal Vs Rent Tribunal Alwar and Anr.