Allowed

Sidique Khan v. State

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2020CRLMB/1200/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a 2nd bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the accused, noting inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. regarding the timing and details of the alleged incident.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in connection with FIR No.291/2019, conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Sidique Khan Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 1200/2020

¶3

Sidique Khan S/o Mohammed, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Musalman Resident Of Rabasar, P.s. Chohtan, District Barmer. (At Present Lodged At Sub Jail, Barmer).

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Javed Hussain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sudhir Tak,PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶10

Order

¶11

10/02/2020

¶12

The present 2^nd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with FIR No.291/2019, Police Station Chohtan, District Barmer for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354B, 323, 376 & 511 of IPC.

¶13

The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 07.01.2020 by this Court.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the first bail application, the charge-sheet has been filed. He further submits that the statements of the prosecutrix are not reliable piece of evidence as there is stark difference in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. because in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix stated that the incident took place in the

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMSB-1200/2020]

¶18

night two and a half months ago, whereas in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that the incident took place at 09:00 A.M. in the morning.

¶19

Besides this, there are further improvisations in the story putforth by the prosecutrix as at one point of time, she stated that her husband and brother-in-law came inside the room, whereas under the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that on being informed, her brother and father came on the spot to help her. The brother and father of the prosecutrix stayed 20 K.M. away from the place of incident. The conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

¶21

Having gone through the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 & Section 164 Cr.P.C. which do not inspire confidence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Accordingly, the 2^nd bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Sidique Khan S/o Mohammed shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.291/2019, Police Station Chohtan, District Barmer provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶23

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶24

8-SunilS/-

Sidique Khan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidique Khan 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

Regional Manager, Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Vs Prakash and Ors.

Manoj Chouhan Vs Shri Ram General Ins. Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Morki Devi and Ors. Vs Babu Lal and Ors.

Mahavir Vs State

Chunnilal Vs State

Surja Ram Vs State