Allowed

Priyanshu Tetarwal S/O Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Oct 2021CRLMB/6733/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. involving offences under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act, the High Court granted bail despite the charge-sheet having been filed, citing no warrant for continued custody at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each for his appearance.

Priyanshu Tetarwal S/O Mahendra Singh Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6733/2021

¶3

Priyanshu Tetarwal S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o House No. 4/232 Housing Board Town Jhunjhunu Ps Kotwali Jhunjhunu Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj. (Presently Confined In Jail At Jhunjhunu)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini PP Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma Mr. Shyogi Ram Sharma

¶8

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶9

Order

¶10

01/10/2021

¶11

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶12

This Court perused the material available on record.

¶13

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.103/2021 of Police Station Kotwali Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown from the record that on previous occasions also, similar FIRs were lodged by the parents of the prosecutrix, and in relation thereto, amicable

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-6733/2021]

¶17

settlement was arrived at with the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submits that one of the complaint was against one Vikas s/o Bijendra Swami, and in that also, compromise has been arrived at; compromise between the prosecutrix and one Jaipal is also on record, which is duly attested by Notary and is dated 26.03.2020. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a 20 years old boy and has been wrongly implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix is a married girl aged above 16 years. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2021 and the charge-sheet in this case has already been filed.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the earlier FIRs are not part of the present case, and thus, the present case has to be considered on its own merits, particularly when the statement of the prosecutrix goes against the petitioner.

¶20

Looking into the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2021 and the charge-sheet in this case has already been filed, as also taking into consideration the record, which is there alongwith the bail application, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, the custody of the petitioner in this case is not warranted.

¶21

Thus, 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

¶22

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-6733/2021]

¶23

proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Priyanshu Tetarwal S/o Mahendra Singh shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.103/2021 of Police Station Kotwali Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu provided he executes 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 his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶25

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶26

SHASHI KANT GAUR /ZEESHAN-3

Priyanshu Tetarwal S/O Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanshu Tetarwal S/O Mahendra Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhajanlal S/O Shri Durga Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamchand S/O Late Raghunath Vs State of Rajasthan

Waris @ Barra S/O Shri Jaikam Vs State of Rajasthan

Aadil Son of Majid, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Balani S/O Ghanshyamdas @ Pappu Vs the State of Rajasthan

Parasram S/O Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan