Allowed

Kumar Vikalp v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC22 Sept 2017CRLMP/5101/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a bail petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. converting an arrest warrant into a bailable warrant for the petitioner-accused in a rape case, citing the prosecutrix's retraction of allegations and the police negative report.

What did the court decide?

Arrest warrant converted into bailable warrant requiring personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000 each, to appear by 13.10.2017.

Kumar Vikalp Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 5101 / 2017 Kumar Vikalp S/o Shri S.K. Jha, by caste Brahmin, R/o 8-87-88, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, (Raj.)

¶3

State of Rajasthan through Public rose cut or.

¶4

-. . . ..' .

¶5

Rubeena Khan, D/o H.A. Raje, by caste Muslim, R/o 344 Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶6

For Petitioner(~) : Mr. Suresh Sahni

¶7

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, PP for the State

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶9

Order

¶10

Petitioner accused filed this Misc. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dt.15.09.2017 passed by *.: learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.5 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in criminal revision petition No.1544/2017 (Kumar Vikalp Vs. State & Ors.) wherein revision petition filed by the petitioner-accused against the order dt.07.09.2017 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.11 Jaipur on application filed by petitioner-accused " under Section 70(2) Cr.P.G. in the complaint case No.589/2006 ( Kumar Vikalp Vs. State of Rajasthan ) for conversation of nonbailable warrant into bailable warrant was dismissed.

¶11

Shri Mohit Balwada, learned counsel wants to appear in this matter on behalf of Vijender Singh S/o Sh. Bala singh resident of 151 Pratap Nagar, police station Jaipur to oppose this bail

¶12

application, treating it as a Public Interest Litigation, since there are certain direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this type of cases wherein even the name of prosecutrix is directed to be protected and there is no interest of aforesaid person therefore no permission can be granted to him for opposing it or intervening in this petition therefore the prayer is rejected.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Suresh Sahni submits that prosecutrix lodged false FIR against present petitioner with some ulterior motive. During investigation, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she clearly stated that

¶14

He submits that not only statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix also submitted an application before Station House Officer, Police Station, Ashok Nagar stating therein that she is not interested to continue the police case lodged by her along with an #.. affidavit duly attested by notary public wherein 'she again stated on oath that she is not interested in continuing the criminal proceedings. He also submits that age of prosecutrix is 27 years therefore she is major and when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She clearly denied the allegation of rape and not made any single allegation against the present petitioner, considering all these facts, police submitted negative final report in this matter. Thereafter on some ulterior motive, prosecutrix submitted protest petition before learned Magistrate wherein learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 376 IPC and

¶15

(3 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP- 5101/2017]

¶17

issued arrest warrant against the petitioner which may be converted in bailable warrant.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and support the impugned order.

¶19

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and police submitted negative final report in this matter, therefore I am inclined to allow this. misc. petition and the arrest warrant issued against the present petitioner in criminal case No.589/2006 'State Vs. Kumar Vikalap' pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur is converted into bailable warrant of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/each provided he appears before learned trial court on or before 13.10.2017, failing which learned trial court is free to ensure the presence of petitioner-accused according to law even by arrest warrant.

¶20

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J. &J

Kumar Vikalp v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Vikalp v. State of Raj and Anr.

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sumela and Ors.

Varun Chandra Maheshwari Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Suresh Chandra Maheshwari and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ummedi Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Veer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt. Bhagwati Devi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.