Dismissed

Rakesh Kumar S/O Shri Mohan Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 May 2022CRLMB/5284/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under Cr.P.C. 439 for rape and POCSO offences, the sole permissible ground raised was that the prosecutrix had called the petitioner. The High Court dismissed the application, noting the testimonies were not hostile and refusing bail without opining on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner not granted bail.

Rakesh Kumar S/O Shri Mohan Lal Meena Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 5284/2022

¶3

Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, R/o Chhappanpura, Police Station Deikheda, District Bundi (Raj.) ( At Present Confined In District Jail Bundi)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Raghav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶9

Order

¶10

16/05/2022

¶11

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 61/2021 registered at Police Station Deikheda, District Bundi for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of the first bail application, the statements of the father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix came to be recorded before the trial Court as PW-1 & PW-2. The father of the prosecutrix i.e. PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that he didn’t know the age of his daughter and he found his daughter near Nahar but he did not see the petitioner there. The prosecutrix-PW-2 in her cross-examination stated that she herself messaged the petitioner through mobile and called him. Earlier also she used to talk to the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely

¶13

(2 of 2)

¶14

[CRLMB-5284/2022]

¶15

been implicated in this case. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be released on bail.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶17

The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2021. As per that order, the prosecutrix in her written report, statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of CrPC has leveled the allegation of rape against the petitioner and she is minor. During the course of trial, the father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix have been examined as PW-1 & PW-2 and they are not hostile witnesses.

¶18

Therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it not proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the 2^nd bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶20

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶21

PAYAL/22

Rakesh Kumar S/O Shri Mohan Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar S/O Shri Mohan Lal Meena 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

Vishnu S/O Nandlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu @ Ilaizar S/O Shri Chotu Lal @ Stalin Vs State of Rajasthan

Ankit Sharma S/O Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Tejprakash Jain S/O Balchand Jain Vs Rameshchand Jain S/O Shri Balchand Jain

Ramavatar @ Rohit S/O Ramniwas Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash @ Om Prakash S/O Kalyan Vs State of Rajasthan