Allowed

Dipesh @ Deepu v. State

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2020CRLMB/9534/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application connected with FIR No.114/2020 concerning offences under IPC and POCSO Act was allowed. The court, noting a belated FIR and investigation delays, granted bail without passing opinion on merits, directing execution of personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Connection of bail applications allowed; petitioners to be released on execution of personal bond with two sureties each.

Dipesh @ Deepu Vs State — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9532/2020

¶3

Vinod Kumar S/o Shrwan Ram, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Nayak, R/o 2 S.t.y. Sataiya, Police Station New Mandi Gharsana, Presently R/o Chak 1 R.m. Dhani In Khet Rohi Raghunathpura, Police Station Jeitsar, District Sri Ganganagar. (Presently Lodged District Jail Sri Ganganagar).

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through P.p.

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9534/2020

¶10

Dipesh @ Deepu S/o Shrwan Ram, Aged About 20 Years, By Caste Nayak, R/o 2 S.t.y. Sataiya, Police Station New Mandi Gharsana, Presently R/o Chak 1 R.m. Dhani In Khet Rohi Raghunathpura, Police Station Jeitsar, District Sri Ganganagar. (Presently Lodged District Jail Sri Ganganagar).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus State, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta on VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki PP for the State.

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

07/12/2020

¶16

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

¶17

This Court perused the material available on record.

¶18

The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No.114/2020 of

¶19

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-9532/2020]

¶20

Police Station Suratgarh Sadar, District Sriganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376(D) IPC and Sections 3/4 & 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the incident in question is that of 01.05.2020, whereas a belated FIR in relation to the said incident, has been lodged on 11.06.2020.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the concerned investigating officer did not find the story narrated in the FIR to be true, as petitioner-Vinod Kumar was engaged to the prosecutrix, and subsequently, when the engagement went bad, the prosecutrix herself called him to take her away.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted before this Court the status report of the investigation, in which the concerned investigating officer has noted that the prosecutrix was engaged with petitioner-Vinod Kumar three years ago. In the said report, the concerned investigating officer has also noted that later on, the family members of the prosecutrix changed the decision of engagement, upon which the prosecutrix requested petitionerVinod Kumar to come and take her away, and thereafter, present petitioner-Vinod Kumar came on 01.05.2020 to take her on a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ 13 SL 9950.

¶25

The said status report is taken on record.

¶26

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, but without expressing any opinion on

¶27

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-9532/2020]

¶28

the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to

¶29

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) Vinod

¶31

Kumar S/o Shrwan Ram and (2) Dipesh @ Deepu S/o Shrwan Ram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.114/2020 of Police Station Suratgarh Sadar, District Sriganganagar 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.

¶32

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶33

20-21-SKant/-

Dipesh @ Deepu v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipesh @ Deepu 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

Ravi Gehlot Vs State of Rajasthan

Sawa Vs State of Rajasthan

Salim Khan Vs State

Jitendra Kumar @ Kala Vs State of Rajasthan

Indra Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawani Singh Vs State