Allowed

Hanif S/O Lukman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Mar 2022CRLMB/2379/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Bench bail application in a custody and criminal matter involving alleged offence under Section 376(B) IPC. The court, noting the pending matrimonial dispute andizas the petitioner as the husband legally married to the prosecutrix, deemed it just and proper to grant bail.

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, one residing in Baran District.

Hanif S/O Lukman 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. 2379/2022

¶3

Hanif S/o Lukman, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vill. Narpatkheri Ps Budhadeet Distt. Kota (Presently Confined At Dist. Jail Baran)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, GA-cum-AAG

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶10

Order

¶11

21/03/2022

¶12

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C in connection with FIR No.727/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Baran for the offences under Sections 365, 366, 341, 323, 454, 376(B) & 34 of IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matrimonial dispute is pending between the parties and the present petitioner is the legally wedded husband of the prosecutrix. The petitioner is behind the bars since 06.01.2022. Counsel further submit that, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 365, 323, 454, 376(B) & 34 of IPC. The prosecutrix is 29 years of age and as per her Medical Report, no injury has been found on her body or on her private parts. Counsel also submits that the bail applications of co-accused Ashik and Lukman have already been granted by

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-2379/2022]

¶16

this Court vide order dated 03.02.2022. Hence, the petitioner may kindly be released on bail.

¶17

Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application.

¶18

Heard. Perused the material available on the record.

¶19

As per the statement of prosecutrix under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., name of the petitioner is written as her husband. Therefore, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner Hanif S/o Lukman 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 (out of which one surety shall be the resident of Baran District) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶21

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶22

Satyendra/17

Hanif S/O Lukman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanif S/O Lukman 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

Narendra Singh S/O Ramesh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Yadav S/O Banvarilal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Singh S/O Sumer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj Kumar S/O Sri Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak S/O Lakhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Atmaram S/O Veersingh Vs State of Rajasthan