Dismissed

Nadeem Qureshi S/O Liyakat Qureshi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2021CRLMB/2986/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail for alleged offences including rape and abuse. Despite claims of false implication and a prior relationship, the court dismissed the application due to the gravity of the offences, specifically threats to viralize nude photos and unlawful physical relations.

What did the court decide?

The bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Nadeem Qureshi S/O Liyakat Qureshi Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2986/2021

¶3

Nadeem Qureshi S/o Liyakat Qureshi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Sirohi, Police Station Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Ola, PP Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶9

Order

¶10

16/08/2021

¶11

The bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.184/2020 registered at Police Station Uniyara, District Tonk for the offence(s) under Sections 366 & 376 IPC and Section 67 & 67-B of I.T. Act, 2000.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner and complainant were in relationship since 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that allegation levelled against the petitioner is that petitioner had made physical relations on the pretext of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that complainant lodged the present FIR, after lodging the FIR by brother of petitioner for offence under Sections 388 and 506 IPC on 19.08.2020 at Police Station Neem Ka Thana. Learned counsel for

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CRLMB-2986/2021]

¶15

the petitioner also submits that petitioner has joined the investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that offence under Sections 67 and 67-B of I.T. Act is not found proved against the petitioner. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Criminal Appeals Nos.113435/2015) decided on 01.09.2015, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1165/2019) decided on 21.08.2019 , Brij Nath Sah Vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No.1475/2003) decided on 29.04.2010 , Vineet Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.577/2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.287/2017) decided on 31.03.2017 , Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.233/2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.11218/2019) decided on 01.03.2021 and Jude Lobo Vs. State, NCT of Delhi (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2907/2021) decided on 29.03.2021 .

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had made physical relations by promising the complainant to marry her and he had also threatened to viral her nude photos. So, the bail application filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

¶17

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

¶18

(3 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMB-2986/2021]

¶20

Allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner had made physical relations with complainant several times by promising to marry her and also threatened her to viral nude photos on internet.

¶21

Looking to the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Hence, the bail application stands dismissed.

¶23

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶24

Jatin /17

Nadeem Qureshi S/O Liyakat Qureshi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem Qureshi S/O Liyakat Qureshi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohandai D/O Shri Surjan Singh W/O Kuljeet Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh S/O Shri Surjansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dheeraj Kumar S/O Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajanti Devi W/O Harikesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Banwari Lal Meena S/O Goverdhan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Kakrania S/O Shri Devi Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan