Partly allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2020CRLMB/14841/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur heard an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner apprehending arrest in a rape case. The counsel requested withdrawal, and the court dismissed the application as withdrawn while directing surrender to the trial court for regular bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner directed to surrender before trial court by 09.01.2020 to file for regular bail.

Suresh Kumar Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14841/2019

¶3

Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Harchand Ram, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Rajeev Nagar, Barjasar, Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Pritam Solanki.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP for the State. Mr. Ankit Choudhary for the complainant.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶9

Order

¶10

03/01/2020

¶11

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.216/2019, Police Station- Lohawat, District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.

¶12

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

¶13

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is a married lady and the petitioner was talking to her for last more than six months. The details with regard to exchange of calls is available on record. The same is at the start of the case diary. Before the date of the incident, there are number of calls between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. In sum and substance, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of pure consent between the petitioner and the complainant and since the husband

¶14

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-14841/2019]

¶15

and brother in law of the prosecutrix had come to know about the relationship, recourse to filing of FIR took place.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶17

After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the bail application with liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed as withdrawn

¶19

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice, it is directed that if the petitioner Suresh Kumar S/o Harchand Ram surrenders before the trial Court on or before 09.01.2020 and file a bail application there, the Court concerned shall consider his bail application preferably on the same day in accordance with law.

¶20

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶21

104-Anil Singh/-

Suresh Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar 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

Jethmal Singh Vs State

Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Tulcha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarjeet Vs State

Krishanlal Nain Vs State