Dismissed

Bhem Sen v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC23 Oct 2017CRLBC/16/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court entertained a bail cancellation petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO. Noting a suicide note linking the deceased to the petitioner, the Court held that despite some allegations against the present respondent differing from those of a co-accused who had been granted bail, it was not proper to cancel the petitioner's bail.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous bail cancellation application is rejected.

Bhem Sen Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation No. 16 / 2017

¶3

Bhem Sen Son of Late Shri Sohan Lal, by Caste Pasi, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Salawat Nagar, P.S. Malani, District Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P. At Present Subedar 125 Field Regiment Itrana Center Alwar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

Pankaj Upadhyay Son of Shri Girdhari, by Caste Brahmin, R/o House No.64, Radha Garden, Bakalpur, Police Station Naroli, District Mathura (U.P.)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP

¶11

Mr. Kapil Gupta for complainant

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

23/10/2017

¶15

Petitioner has filed this bail cancellation application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶16

F.I.R. No.154/2016, was registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar, Alwar for offence under Sections 305, 376, 354-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 and Section 11(4)(5) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act.

¶17

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted bail by the Court on the ground that his case was akin to that of Hari Charan Meena who was given benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶18

It is contended that the case of the respondent no.2 was not

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CRLBC-16/2017]

¶21

akin to that of Hari Charan Meena who was given benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as the allegation against Hari Charan Meena was for offence under Sections 354(A), 376/511 I.P.C. whereas, the offence against the present respondent is for offence under Section 376, 306 of I.P.C. and under the POCSO Act.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Puran vs. Rambilas” 2001 (2RCR) (Cri.) 801 wherein the Apex Court held that where bail granted ignoring material and evidence on record, it can be considered as a ground for cancellation of bail

¶23

Counsel for the respondent has opposed the bail cancellation application. His contention is that in the suicide note, the deceased has mentioned that she is committing suicide as Nandini had come within her relationship with the present respondent.

¶24

I have considered the contentions.

¶25

In view of what has been mentioned in the suicide note even though there may be minor difference in the case of respondent qua the co-accused who has been given benefit of bail by Coordinate bench of this Court, I do not deem it proper to cancel the bail. The criminal misc. bail cancellation application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶27

Arti/3

Bhem Sen v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhem Sen v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhajan Lal and Anr. Vs J v v N L and Ors.

Gajanand Sharma Vs Union of India and Anr.

Nazir and Anr. Vs Kanhaiya Lal and Ors.

Amit Jain Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Shiv Raj Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mukesh Kumari Yadav Vs State of Raj and Anr.