Dismissed

Chitranjan Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2022CRLMB/15116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under IPC and POCSO Act, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan rejected the plea, finding it not a fit case for bail due to gravity of allegations. The Court directed the trial court to record the prosecutrix's statement as a first witness. Relief is null.

What did the court decide?

None granted. Bail application dismissed. Trial court directed to record statement of prosecutrix in priority.

Chitranjan Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Ram Vs… — 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. 15116/2022

¶3

Chitranjan Kumar Son Of Shri Ashok Ram, Resident Of Village Shahpura Post Morsaray Police Station Shivsagar District Rohatas (Bihar)

¶4

At Present Resident Tenant Plot No. C-41, Sudarshan Nagar, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶5

---Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

16/11/2022

¶13

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner in connection with FIR No.396/2022 registered at Police Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City East, District Jaipur City (East) wherein he is charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (n) of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO (Amendments) Act, 2012 & 2019 and under Section 5 & 6 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to quarrel with the parents, victim herself left the home. Counsel submits that looking to the statements of the victim and other witnesses, no case is made out against the petitioner. Counsel submits that after the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and trial will

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-15116/2022]

¶17

take its own time to conclude, so indulgence bail be extended to the petitioner.

¶18

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶19

Looking to the gravity of the matter and the allegations levelled in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail.

¶20

Hence, the present bail application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the statement of prosecutrix.

¶21

The trial court is directed to record the statement of the prosecutrix in priority basis as a first witness.

¶22

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶23

PRAVESH/60

Chitranjan Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitranjan Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Ram 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

Manish Kumar S/O Brajmohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Farukh @ Fakru S/O Juhru Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Alatmas S/O Abdul Rehman Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra @ Bablu @ Balliyan @ Nafliya S/O Shri Madan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Neeraj @ Montu Jayaswal Son of Kamlesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram Son of Gobrilal Vs State of Rajasthan