This appeal entertained a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under 376D IPC and the POCSO Act. The court dismissed the application, holding that the gravity of the offences precluded anticipatory bail.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed as not a fit case due to the gravity of the charges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1110/2023
Pratap S/o Jagdish, R/o Village Bilothi, P.s. Chiksana, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
27/03/2023
The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.377/2018 registered at Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Sections 376D IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act (later on offence u/s 376D IPC and Section 5G/6, 16/17 read with Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act was found to have been made out).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. After investigation, Investigating Officer had not found the offence proved against the petitioner. After that the trial court recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses during trial and took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence u/s 376D IPC, Section 5g/6, 16/17 read with Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and summoned the petitioner through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner has challenged the cognizance order by way of revision.
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-1110/2023]
Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner so, petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
Trial court vide order dt.20.10.2022 has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence u/s 376D IPC, Section 5g/6, 16/17 read with Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 so looking to the gravity of offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Hence, anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Brijesh 89.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a fit case arises for enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail given the gravity of the offences under 376D IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the High Court should grant anticipatory bail in proceedings involving serious sexual offences against a child.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Pratap S/o Jagdish
State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
