Allowed

Taiyab Hussain v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2023CRLAS/381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, set aside the rejection of bail by Sessions Judge, and ordered the release of the accused on bail with personal and surety bonds, citing delay in FIR and medical examination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and accused released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Taiyab Hussain Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:23294]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 381/2023

¶4

Taiyab Hussain S/o Sh. Sadique Ali, Aged About 20 Years, R/o.16 BB, P.s. Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sriganganagar (Raj.).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Sukhdev Singh S/o Balakar Singh Majbi, R/o.Chak 16 BB, P.s. Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

25/07/2023

¶14

The office has raised the objection that in the first instance, the appellant has preferred a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by this Court on 17.02.2022. However, as per the charge sheet, the offence under POCSO Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been made out and, therefore, the appellant has rightly filed appeal under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶15

In this view of the matter, the office objection is overruled.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the application (01/23) preferred by him for converting the appeal into bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:23294]

[CRLAS-381/2023]

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned public prosecutor on main appeal.

¶22

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.109/2021 (CIS 78/2021), Police Station Padampur, District Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 363, 377 of I.P.C, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act, 2012 & Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005) No.1, Sriganganagar, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

¶23

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR has been registered after a delay of fifteen days and the Medical Examination of the victim was conducted after a delay of one month. He further submits that offences are triable by Magistrate and the appellant is facing incarceration for last more than two years.

¶25

Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act, 2012 & Commission for Protection of Child

[2023:RJ-JD:23294]

[CRLAS-381/2023]

(3 of 3)

Rights Act, 2005) No.1, Sriganganagar, is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Taiyab Hussain S/o Sh. Sadique Ali arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 109/2021 (CIS 78/2021), Police Station Padampur, District Sriganganagar shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/(Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/(Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶32

68-SanjayS/-

Taiyab Hussain v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taiyab Hussain 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

Renu Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Girdhari Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Saran Vs Union of India

Guman Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sumer Singh Rajpurohit Vs State of Rajasthan