Allowed

Tasleem S/O Habeeb v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Sept 2022CRLMB/8226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. Addressing disputes over the victim's age, marriage status, and financial interactions, the court decided to grant bail while ensuring appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant to be enlarged on bail providing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Tasleem S/O Habeeb Vs State of Rajasthan — 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. 8226/2022

¶3

Tasleem S/o Habeeb, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Dhunela Police Station Bhondsi (Sohna) District Gurugram Haryana (Presently Accused Is In Judicial Custody In District Jail Alwar)

¶4

----Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP Mr. Girish Khandelwal (for complainant)

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶10

Order

¶11

07/09/2022

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No.116/2021 registered at Police Station Khairthal, District Bhiwadi (Alwar) for the offence(s) under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Sections 5(l)/6, 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that in the case in hand, the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case only because of certain financial transactions that he had entered into with the victim’s father. He further submits that in the case in hand, the alleged incidence took place on 27.01.2021, medical examination was done on 06.03.2021. He further submits that the victim is a married lady who herself has stated before the

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMB-8226/2022]

¶16

POCSO court that she was married in the year 2020 and she was major at that time. She has also submitted that in Aadhar card, her date of birth is 12.12.2003 whereas in the same statement, she has also stated that as per school record, her date of birth is 12.12.2004. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court upon the statements of her husband who is unaware about the alleged incidence and the medical report dated 06.03.2021. Charge-sheet has already been filed. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused-applicant behind the bars till disposal of the case.

¶17

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor along with learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the victim is a minor lady as her school record reflected her date of birth as 12.12.2004. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the statements recorded before the Court on 21.06.2022 reflects that the accused-applicant has induced and threatened the victim and committed rape.

¶18

Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record and also considering the fact that: (a) Date of birth of the victim is disputed at her own instance and also as per the documents reflected before the Court in the form of Aadhar card.

¶19

(b) She is a married lady and she herself has stated that her marriage was occasioned when she attained majority. (c) There are financial transactions entered in between the complainant, that is, father of the victim and the accused-

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-8226/2022]

¶22

applicant and dispute between the complainant and applicant is also in existence.

¶23

(d) There is close proximity existing between the applicant and the victim since a long period of time.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid facts, but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicant- Tasleem S/o Habeeb shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶27

CHARU SONI /22

Tasleem S/O Habeeb v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tasleem S/O Habeeb 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

Lovpreet Singh Son of Sarjeet Vs State of Rajasthan

Haider Khan Son of Shri Abdul Hafeez @ Vaheed Vs State of Rajasthan

Haider Khan Son of Shri Abdul Hafji @ Vaheed Vs State of Rajasthan

Surjaram Jat S/O Shri Aaidanram Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkishan Gurjar Son of Shri Madan Lal Alias Magna Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Aakash Singh S/O Shri Harikesh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan