Allowed

Raju @Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2022CRLMB/10440/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two bail applications filed by accused-petitioners. Considering the long trial duration and incongruencies in the prosecutrix's statement, the Court deemed further incarceration unjust and improper, granting bail with a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Raju @Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 10438/2022

¶3

Gawra @ Gorishankar S/o Hurma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Puchiyada, P.s. Chitri, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.). (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Dungarpur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 10440/2022

¶10

Raju @ Rajendra S/o Lt. Manilal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Puchiyada, P.s. Chitri, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.). (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Dungarpur).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶17

Order

¶18

18/08/2022

¶19

The instant bail applications have been filed by the accusedpetitioners Gawra @ Gorishankar S/o Hurma and Raju @ Rajendra S/o Late Manilal under Section 439 Cr.P.C. against the order impugned passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No. 148/2021 registered at Police Station Chitri District Dungarpur for the offence(s) under Sections 366, 344, 376 (D), 376 (2) (n) of IPC.

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CRLMB-10438/2022]

¶22

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that a patently false case has been foisted against the petitioners. They have not committed the alleged offences. The prosecutrix is a grown up lady aged 40 years. She has been examined in the trial as PW-3 and there are many incongruencies and infirmities in her statement. The petitioners are behind the bars since long and

¶23

further incarceration would not serve any purpose.

¶24

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications. He submits that it is a case of gang rape as allegations of ravishing the prosecutrix have been levelled against two accused persons.

¶25

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

¶26

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the admissions made by the prosecutrix in her statement and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this Court does not deem it just and proper to allow further incarceration of the accused- petitioners.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that each of the accusedpetitioners named above shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶28

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶29

39-40-RP/-

Raju @Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @Rajendra 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

Daulat Devi Vs New India Ins. Co. Ltd.

Kamla Devi Vs Vijay Singh

Dharmichand Vs Praveen

Madan Lal Vs Sampat Raj

Vikram Deora Vs State of Rajasthan

Gawra @Gorishankar Vs State of Rajasthan