Allowed

Amarchand @ Kaalia S/O Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Jan 2022CRLMB/15627/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's second bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a POCSO case. Considering the prosecutrix's hostility and irregularities in her age disclosure despite school records showing she was a minor at the time of the offence, the court deemed it just to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Amarchand @ Kaalia S/O Hanuman Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 15627/2021 Amarchand @ Kaalia S/o Hanuman, R/o Village Lalasar, P.S. Dudhwakhara, Distt. Churu (Raj.) (at present confined in District Jail, Jhunjhunu)

¶3

...Accused petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Rajatshan through PP

¶6

....Non Petitioner

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali, Advocate through VC For State : Mr. Fateh Ram Meena, Public Prosecutor For Complainant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kuri, Advocate through VC

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶9

Order

¶10

13/01/2022

¶11

This 2nd bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in FIR No. 41/2020 registered at Police Station Bissau, District Jhunjhunu for the offence under Section 363 IPC (Charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 363, 376, 366 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act).

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 1st bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.5.2021 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after recording the statement of the prosecutrix. Thereafter the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded as PW-1 and in her statement, she disclosed her age to be 20 years. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that she is illiterate and does not remember her date of birth. In her cross-examination,

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[IInd Bail No. 15627/2021]

¶15

she stated that she does not know to put the signature and she never went in any school. She has not supported the prosecution case and she has been declared hostile. He further submits that the statement of father of the prosecutrix has also been recorded as PW-2. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his daughter (prosecutrix) is illiterate and does not know to put the signature. Even on the statement of the prosecutrix recorded as PW-1, she put her thumb impression, which goes to show that she never went to school, she is illiterate and puts her thumb impression. Thus, the school record, wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded as 1.9.2004 is unreliable and untrustworthy. He further submits that this is a case of blackmailing. There are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The accused petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He is behind the bars since long and the conclusion of trial will take long time. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant have opposed the same and submit that as per record of Government School, where the prosecutrix studied, her date of birth is 1.9.2004 and when the offence was committed, she was below 18 years of age. They further submit in addition to the present case, one case has also been registered against him for the offence under Section 354 IPC. Hence, the petitioner should not be granted bail.

¶17

(3 of 3)

¶18

[IInd Bail No. 15627/2021]

¶19

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the statement of the prosecutrix and her father recorded as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively and the fact that the prosecutrix has been declared hostile, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, this IInd bail application is allowed and accused petitioner Amarchand @ Kaalia S/o Hanuman is ordered to be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before the trial court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶21

(PRAKASH GUPTA) J.

¶22

Amarchand @ Kaalia S/O Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarchand @ Kaalia S/O Hanuman 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

Nitin Rela Son of Shri Kailash Rela Vs Shyamsundar Son of Shri Mohan Lal Sharma

Ram Lal Saini Vs Raj Bridge and Construction

Anjali Bansal D/O Shri Uttam Chand Bansal W/O Shri Varun Goyal Vs Varun Goyal Son of Narendra Kumar Goyal

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal S/O Shri Surajmal Agarwal Vs Madhusudan Sharma S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma

Smt Radha Devi and Ors. Vs Kundan Singh and Ors.

Shiv Charan and Another Vs U I T Bharatpur and Another