Allowed

Pappu @ Prakash v. State

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2020CRLMB/7154/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to two petitioners arrested for offenses under Sections 376 and 120-B IPC. The court held that proceedings may take time and it was just and proper to allow bail on execution of a personal bond without going into the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Pappu @ Prakash 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. 7154/2020

¶3

Pappu @ Prakash S/o Shri Gattu Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Village Peeth Khatwara, Ps Dhambola, District Dungarpur (Rajasthan). (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Dungarpur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through P.p.

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6736/2020

¶10

Bhema S/o Shri Gautam, Aged About 43 Years, Peetha Khatwada, Police Station Dhambola, District Dungarpur. (At Present Lodged In District Jail Dungarpur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh, on VC Mr. SS Shaktawat, on VC

¶16

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

¶17

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶18

Order

¶19

14/09/2020

¶20

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

¶21

This Court perused the material available on record.

¶22

The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No.155/2020 of

¶23

Police Station Dhambola, District Dungarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 376 & 120-B IPC. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶24

FIR reflects that the allegation against Bhema (husband) is that he forced his wife (i.e. prosecutrix) to have sexual relations with Pappu @ Prakash. FIR also reflects that she got married eight

¶25

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-7154/2020]

¶26

years ago and had a daughter out of marriage. The relation between husband and wife were good until the incident inquestion.

¶27

Prime allegation against accused Pappu @ Prakash is that he enticed prosecutrix with promise to marry, thus, was exploiting her and had now refused to marry her. In lieu of marriage prosecutrix became pregnant and is now 07 months pregnant.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications.

¶29

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take some time and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶30

Accordingly, these bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that petitioners (1) Pappu @ Prakash S/o. Gattu Lal (CRLMB No.7154/2020) (2) Bhema S/o. Gautam (CRLMB No.6736/2020) shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.155/2020 of Police Station Dhambola, District Dungarpur provided each of them execute 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 learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶31

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶32

11-Sanjay/-

Pappu @ Prakash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu @ Prakash 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

Prem Prakash Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Nalini Devi Verma Vs Meera Kala Mandir

Ramesh Kumar Nai Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu @ Raghuveer Vs State

Sanjeev Kumar Das Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhema Vs State