The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that given the gravity of the rape allegations, the petitioner was not a fit case to be released on bail.
Bail application is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11719/2021
Yogendra Mehta @ Tapaswi Baba S/o Late Shri Moharilal Mheta, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Vill. Mukandpura Hall Tapaswi Baba Ka Ashram Muknadpura Ps Bhankkkrota Jaipur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
23/11/2021
The bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.161/2021 Registered at Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur (West) for the offence(s) under Sections 376 and 384 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 24.05.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that prosecutrix is a major and married lady. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per FIR, no specific date, month and year have been mentioned by the prosecutrix for allegation of rape. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-11719/2021]
FIR, allegation against the petitioner is that he had raped with the prosecutrix from year 2011 to 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that at that time, prosecutrix had not complaint to anyone. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had filed the affidavit of Chitra Jangid, Chand Kumar Jangid and Girija Jangid in which they had denied any wrong was done with prosecutrix and other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that sister-in-law of the prosecutrix has lodged the false FIR against the petitioner in which final negative report was submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is a dispute of plot, so, the present FIR was lodged. Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner had acted as a God-man and raped the prosecutrix several times. He also induces her husband to send her younger daughter. So, looking to the gravity of offence, the bail application filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had acted as a God-man and raped the prosecutrix several times. So, looking to the gravity of offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Hence, the bail application is dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin/07
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for enlargement on bail in connection with charges of rape.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yogendra Mehta @ Tapaswi Baba
State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
