Allowed

Kamlesh Kumar Raigar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC16 May 2016CRLMB/5846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was accepted. The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, an undertrial arrested for offences under Sections 363 and 366A IPC. The court held that continuous detention was not warranted as the accused was in custody since early January 2016 and the trial would take a significant duration to conclude, noting the prosecutrix was bordering the age of 18 years.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Kamlesh Kumar Raigar Vs State of Rajasthan… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.5846/2016 (Kamlesh Kumar Raigar v. State of Rajasthan)

¶5

Date of Order: 16/05/2016

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶8

Mr. Amit Jindal, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Aladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor for State.

¶10

Present application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of a regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No.195/2015, registered at Police Station Amarsar, District Jaipur Rural for offences under Sections 363 and 366A IPC.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect identity) in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she had called the accused to Village Anup Pura and both had gone to Sri Madhopur Railway Station, from there they traveled in a train to Delhi. They had taken a room on rent at Delhi. Thereafter they returned from Delhi to Reengus and from there they reached to Badiya Ki Chowki. Counsel submits that later prosecutrix who was a consenting party and had herself accompanied the accused, improved the version and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. leveled allegation of rape. Even if the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is read, it is apparent that the prosecutrix had left her house alongwith the accused on motorcycle. From the Village accused and prosecutrix came to Sri Madhopur, from there they had traveled to Delhi and from Delhi to Reengus. Counsel has submitted that the prosecutrix had not complained to anybody even though she had traveled in public transport and visited public places.

¶12

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that age of the prosecutrix is sixteen years.

¶13

Be that as it may, without commenting on the

¶14

¶15

merits of the case and considering the fact that the prosecutrix is bordering the age of 18 years, this court is of the view that in the present case continuous detention of the petitioner as an under trial is not warranted as trial of the case will take a long time to conclude as petitioner is in custody since 6.1.2016 and period of police remand is already over,

¶16

Consequently, the present application is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶17

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J.

¶18

Govind/-

Kamlesh Kumar Raigar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar Raigar 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

Biyani Sikshan Samiti Vs State Animal and Husbsndry Depors

Sanjay Surolia Vs Principal Secretar andORS

Namita Sharma Vs H S Meena and Another

Narendra Singh @ Jarnel Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Abdul Manaan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Surendra Kumar Dhaka Vs State Education Departmentors