Dismissed

Sonu Harijan Son of Bhairulal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2022CRLMB/13028/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a bail application filed by an accused charged with kidnapping, rape, and offences under POCSO. The court held that the grievous nature of the charges warranted rejection despite forensic evidence showing no obscene material on the petitioner's phone.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Trial court directed to expedite trial.

Sonu Harijan Son of Bhairulal Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13028/2022

¶3

Sonu Harijan Son Of Bhairulal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Badoliya, Teh. Ladpura, Police Station Kaithoon, Presently Patel Market, Shop No. 33, Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota (At Present Accused Confined In Jail Kota Distt. Kota)

¶4

----Accused-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mangal Singh Saini,PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶9

Order

¶10

14/11/2022

¶11

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner in connection with FIR No.10/2022 registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, District Kota City wherein he is charged for offences punishable under Sections 363 & 376 of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial court, she has submitted that her obscene photographs were clicked and a video was prepared by the petitioner and, thereafter, rape was committed with her. Counsel submits that mobile phone of the petitioner was sent to forensic science laboratory which contained no obscene material. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, hence indulgence of bail is extended to him.

¶13

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-13028/2022]

¶14

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the prosecutrix is a minor girl aged of 15 years and she has levelled allegations of rape committed with her by the present petitioner, so the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶15

Heard and considered the submissions made by the parties. Looking to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before

¶16

the trial court, I do not find any case to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

¶17

Hence, the present bail application stands dismissed. The trial court is expected to expedite the trial.

¶18

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶19

RAJAT KUMAR /30

Sonu Harijan Son of Bhairulal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Harijan Son of Bhairulal 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

Sube Singh Yadav S/O Shri Beni Prasad Vs Shri Dr. R. Venkateshwara, Principal Secretary, Department of Education (Secondary)

Shri Brij Mohan Sharma Vs Shri Nathmal Dindel

Rampal Mahawar S/O Shri Onkar Mal Vs Manoj Kumar S/O Shri Munna Lal

Rajesh Kumar S/O Kishan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohit Amarsariya S/O Shri Anil Kumar Amarsariya Vs State of Rajasthan

Jalam Bharti S/O Bhagwan Bharti Vs State of Rajasthan