Allowed

Sanjay v. State

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2020CRLAS/191/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the special bail appeal. Noting the delay in FIR lodging and pendency of trial, the court set aside the rejection of bail and released the appellant on bail with a personal bond and two sureties under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act and Section 439 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Sanjay Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 191/2020

¶3

Sanjay S/o Raju Parmar, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Meena, R/o Sarera Phala Bichla Police Thana Pahada, District Dungarpur. (At Present Lodged In District Jail Dungarpur).

----Appellant

Versus

State, Through P.p.

			----Respondent
For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki,	PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶9

Order

¶10

07/02/2020

¶11

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.159/2019, Police Station Dovda, District Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 376, 365, 370(2), 376D, 466 and 471 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dungarpur, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

¶12

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R as the prosecutrix went missing on 14/05/2019, however the F.I.R was submitted on 26/07/2019. He further submits that the prosecutrix is a major lady of 18 years and she has travelled with the present

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLAS-191/2020]

¶16

appellant to distance places. She stayed at different location with the present appellant. He further submits that similar allegations have been levelled against co-accused Ajay who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28/01/2020. The charge sheet in the matter has been filed. The conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.

¶17

Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13/11/2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dungarpur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Sanjay S/o Raju Parmar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 159/2019, Police Station Dovda, District Dungarpur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶19

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶20

93-SanjayS/-

Sanjay v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. State

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

Arjun Ram Vs State

Manchharam Purohit Vs State

Mohan Lal Vs State

Narpat Ram Vs State

Mukesh Vs State

Susheel Vs State