The second bail application regarding charges of kidnapping,接送, rape and POCSO offences was dismissed as the court held the petitioner was connected to the crime despite defense arguments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 12744/2019
Shankarlal Pargi S/o Shri Jeevaram Pargi, aged about 27 years, R/o Lunariya, Post Kolyari, P.S. Falasiya, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.). (Presently lodged in Central Jail Udaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
07/11/2019
The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 10/2018, Police Station Falasiya, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 344 of I.P.C. and Sections 4, 6 & 18 of POCSO Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the statement of the prosecutrix “S”, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner as the entire allegations have been levelled against Shanker, the driver, who is not the present petitioner.
I have gone through the statement of P.W. 2 - prosecutrix “S”. She in her statement has clearly stated that she had stayed in the room of the present petitioner, who had also given beating to
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-12744/2019]
her. However, in her cross-examination, she has stated that Shanker, the driver, has also given beating to her. From a close examination of the statement of the prosecutrix “S” (P.W. 2), it cannot be inferred that there is no involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of alleged crime and the petitioner is having no connection with the commission of the offence alleged in the present case.
Considering all aspects, this Court is not inclined to grant concession of bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Dismissed accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
35-Inder/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act given the prosecutrix's statement.
Whether the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the alleged crime can be inferred from the prosecutrix's statement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shankarlal Pargi
State of Rajasthan
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
