Allowed

Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2019CRLMB/5348/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The petitioner, facing charges of sexual assault and blackmail, was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond with sureties, subject to standard conditions including appearance for interrogation and no travel abroad without permission.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each each and complying with standard conditions.

Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5348/2019

¶3

Babu Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 55 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Village Dadiba, P.S. Bidasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner	: Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent	: Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.
For Complainant	: Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate assisted
	by Mr. Tarun Dhaka

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

02/07/2019

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶13

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.271/2018 of Police Station Ladnu, District Nagaur for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 506 and 509 IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner of sexual assault upon the prosecutrix is false. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact the husband of the prosecutrix was working as Driver in the contractorship firm of petitioner and during that period the relations between the petitioner and the

¶15

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-5348/2019]

¶16

prosecutrix were developed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during that period the petitioner provided a residential house to the prosecutrix and her husband, however, later on, when the construction work was over the petitioner shifted to Jaipur and asked the prosecutrix and her husband to vacate the house but they refused to vacate the same then the petitioner served a notice to them through his counsel for vacation of the house and later on, also filed a suit in the Civil Court for the purpose of vacation of the house. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after came to know about the said proceedings initiated by the petitioner, a complaint was filed by the prosecutrix alleging that from last three years the petitioner was sexually assaulted her and blackmailing her to publish video clips of intimate relations between them.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact the video clips were not made viral by the petitioner and the same were made viral by co-accused Ajay Raj. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix is major lady and whatever the relations were developed between her and the petitioner the same were consensual and the allegation of sexual assault and blackmailing are false. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that co-accused person Ajay Raj, who made the video clips viral, is out of India and he is the only person who is responsible for defaming the prosecutrix and not the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶18

(3 of 4)

¶19

[CRLMB-5348/2019]

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that though the FIR has been lodged after delay but the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically alleged that the petitioner was sexually assaulted her and also blackmailed her while making video clips viral. Learned counsel for the complainant has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner - Babu Lal S/o Bhanwar Lal in FIR No.271/2018 of Police Station Ladnu, District Nagaur he shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶24

(ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

¶25

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-5348/2019]

¶26

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court

¶27

or to any Police Officer;

¶28

(iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶29

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶30

Abhishek Kumar S.No.72

Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Vesta Vs State

Nawaz Ali Vs State

Dilip Rao Vs State

Vijay Khateek Vs State

Jai Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankarlal Vs State