Allowed

Rinku @ Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2022CRLMB/8280/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the petitioner arrested under IPC and POCSO Act sections. The court directed release on a personal bond with sureties, allowing appearance in court till trial completion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in connection with FIR No. 90/2022 on executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Rinku @ Pankaj Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8280/2022

¶3

Rinku @ Pankaj S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Nagrana, P.s. Sangriya, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Ram Lal S/o Sh. Basti Ram, R/o Chak SBN Dhani, Sangriya, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	KuldeepSharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	A.R. Choudhary, PP Anil Bidan Halu

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

01/09/2022

¶13

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 90/2022 of Police Station Sangriya, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 5(L)/6 POCSO Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she specifically mentioned that she went along with the petitioner with her own free will and resided with him in Gujarat for about one month. Counsel further submits that if anything happened, it was with the consent of the prosecutrix. Challan of the case has already been presented. The accused-petitioner is behind the bars

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-8280/2022]

¶17

and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶19

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Rinku @ Pankaj S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.90/2022 of Police Station Sangriya, District Hanumangarh provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶21

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶22

89-raksha/-

Rinku @ Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku @ Pankaj 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

Ajit Singh Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Ashok Vs State of Rajasthan

Manak Puri Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Gopi

Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan