Allowed

Manak Chand @ Kalulal S/O Biharilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 May 2022CRLMB/1653/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the petitioner accused in a case registered under Section 363 IPC, noting the delay in FIR lodging and the possibility of the incident being an elopement rather than abduction. The Court enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Manak Chand @ Kalulal S/O Biharilal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1653/2022

¶3

Manak Chand @ Kalulal S/o Biharilal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Maytha Ps Atru Dist. Baran Raj. (At Present In Dist. Jail Baran)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

24/05/2022

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Manak Chand @ Kalulal S/o Biharilal. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 0207/2021 registered at Police Station Atru, District Baran for the offence(s) under Section 363 IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, for which no explanation has been furnished and thus, the possibility of embellishment cannot be ruled out. He further submits that the statement of the prosecutrix is not at all a reliable piece of evidence rather a safe inference of consent can easily be withdrawn from her conduct. Further, the manner in which the incident alleged to have taken place and the fact that she went with the petitioner on a motor cycle and stayed with him for two long months would make it abundantly clear that it was a case of elopement which has subsequently turned into an allegation of rape. Learned counsel

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-1653/2022]

¶16

raises serious doubts on the sanctity of the documents placed by the prosecution to assert that the girl is below 18 years old. The petitioner is young boy aged of 21 years.

¶17

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties, gone through the challen paper, more particularly the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. Considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and looking to overall facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the necessities of the matter this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above shall be enlarged on bail provided he 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶19

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶20

ANIL SHARMA /12

Manak Chand @ Kalulal S/O Biharilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manak Chand @ Kalulal S/O Biharilal 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

Luvkush S/O Shri Mohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Kumar S/O Shri Sitaram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Meena S/O Jagmohan @ Gajju Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Sharma @ Manish Shooter S/O Shri Jugalkishore Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Kumar Jangid @ Ankit Son of Shri Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Gautam S/O Mukesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan