Dismissed

Dinesh Son of Shri Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jun 2023CRLMB/1395/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discretionary bail application filed by an accused facing charges under IPC and POCSO Act. The High Court dismissed the application without deciding on merits, noting the statement of the prosecutrix has not yet been recorded. Liberty was granted to file a fresh petition after such statement is recorded. The relief prayed for was rejected pending this procedural step.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not enlarged on bail. Liberty granted to file fresh petition after prosecutrix records statement.

Dinesh Son of Shri Prahlad Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1395/2023

¶3

Dinesh Son Of Shri Prahlad, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Dhani Bajadan, Police Station Nechwa District Sikar (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Confined In District Jail Sikar)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR (V. J.) Order

¶10

07/06/2023

¶11

This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.678/2022 Police Station Kotwali, Sikar for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376-D, 506 of IPC and Section 5(f), 5(l) & 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Amended), 2012.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR of this case has been lodged after a delay of eight months. Learned counsel further submits that first incident in this case is said to be occurred on 13.02.2022 whereas FIR has been lodged on 13.10.2022. Learned counsel further submits that false allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that he took away the prosecutrix at various hotels namely R.D. Hotel & Surya Hotel and raped the prosecutrix. He further submits that visitor register of

¶13

[CRLMB-1395/2023]

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

the said hotels has been seized by the police during investigation and dates of the stay of the petitioner in the hotels as alleged by the prosecutrix is not matching with the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, therefore, he should be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this bail application.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the present petitioner at this juncture.

¶18

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file fresh petition after recording statement of the prosecutrix. Learned trial Court is directed to record the statement of the prosecutrix on priority basis.

¶19

Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.

¶20

[ASHUTOSH KUMAR (V. J.),J]

¶21

JKP/25

Dinesh Son of Shri Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Son of Shri Prahlad 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

Babulal Dhaka S/O Surjaram Dhaka Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh S/O Balwan @ Balram Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Mehra @ Max S/O Shri Kalyan Sahay @ Kalluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar S/O Shyopal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Krishna Kumari Jat D/O Shri Suglaram Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Seema Soni D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Soni, Wife of Shri Yogesh Kumar Choubey, Vs State of Rajasthan