Allowed

Tufansingh S/O Mansingh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Apr 2023CRLAS/90/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 90/2023, the High Court considered a bail appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. Addressing arguments regarding FIR delay and lack of recovered video evidence, the Court held it just and proper to allow the appeal. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was remitted to community on a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; accused released on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each. Released on bail. Liberty to appear on all dates.

Tufansingh S/O Mansingh Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/006243]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 90/2023

¶4

Tufansingh S/o Mansingh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Hatuniya Police Station Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar (Raj) (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhalawar (Raj)

¶5

----Accused-Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

-----Respondent

¶9

Victim, R/o

¶10

----Complaint-Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

10/04/2023

¶15

Notice has already been served upon the complainant, but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant.

¶16

This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the appellant in connection with FIR No.335/2022, Police Station Bhawani Manid, District Jhalawar for the offences under Sections 376, 376 (2) (N), 384 & 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix it transpires that accused – appellant committed rape for the first time two years before lodging of the FIR. Thus, the FIR has been lodged with a delay of two years.

[2023/RJJP/006243]

[CRLAS-90/2023]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel argued that there is allegation against the accused – appellant of recording some obscene videos and photographs of prosecutrix in his mobile phone, but no video or photograph of prosecutrix has been recovered from the possession of the appellant, which shows that allegation against the accused – appellant of making video and photograph is false.

¶22

Learned counsel also submitted that prosecutrix is 29 years of age and well known to the accused. Learned counsel further submitted that FIR has been lodged with a delay of two years against the accused. Learned counsel contended that accused appellant has been arrested on 24.11.2022 and since then he is behind the bars.

¶23

It has also been contended that trial will take long time to conclude, therefore, the accused should be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the appellant’s prayer. Learned Public Prosecutor admitted that no obscene material i.e. any video and photograph has been recovered during the course of investigation.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at the bar and also considering the fact that as per the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix herself has stated that the first incident took place two years before and there is some dispute between husband of the prosecutrix and the appellant regarding finance of the motorcycle, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the present appeal of the appellant.

¶25

[2023/RJJP/006243]

¶26

[CRLAS-90/2023]

¶27

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jhalawar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused – appellant - Tufansingh S/o Maansingh arrested in connection with FIR No.335/2022, Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶28

Appellant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶29

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶30

MADAN/96

Tufansingh S/O Mansingh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tufansingh S/O Mansingh 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

Irfan Khan Son of Allanur Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh S/O Lt. Shri Brijmohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rekh Singh Son of Shri Ramniwas Vs State of Rajasthan

Dushyant Mehta S/O Shri Purshottam Lal Mehta Vs State of Rajasthan

Harvindar @ Papoli Son of Khiladi Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit S/O Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan