Dismissed

Kanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 May 2023CRLMB/1424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an offense of rape, the court rejected the plea of false implication based on land disputes. The court opined that prosecutrix statements are to be treated as true in rape cases and dismissed the bail application without prejudice to future evaluations after recording of statements.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; liberty to file fresh application after recording of prosecutrix statement awaits.

Kanti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/015064]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1424/2023

¶4

Kanti Lal S/o Haja, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Fala Hiratfala Nainbara, Tehsil Jhadol, District Udaipur. (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

15/05/2023

¶13

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.25/2022 registered at Police Station Baaghpura District Udaipur for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 450 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, the petitioner who is brother in law of the prosecutrix on 31.05.2021, raped the perosecutrix in her house. Learned counsel submitted that in the statement under Section 161, prosecutrix has clearly stated that immediately after the incident, she approached Pradhan of the village and narrated the incident to him asking for help. However, the Pradhan (Mohan Lal Bagoria) in his statement under Section

[2023/RJJD/015064]

[CRLMB-1424/2023]

(2 of 3)

161 Cr.P.C has not disclosed any fact with regard to any such occurrence though, he admitted that prosecutrix sought his help as she was abused and threatened by the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel submitted that in view of aforesaid statement coupled with the fact that there are some land disputes between the petitioner and prosecutrix, it is evident that petitioner has been falsely roped in the present case. On these grounds, he implored the court to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 01.06.2022 and 06.06.2022 respectively has maintained her stance. He prayed that application for bail may be rejected.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

Having gone through the FIR, statements of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. on 01.06.2022 and 06.06.2022 respectively, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, in cases of sexual assault/rape, statements of prosecutrix are to be considered as true and minor contradictions, if any, in her statements cannot be considered at the stage of bail. Merely because there is a land dispute between the parties, the allegation of rape cannot be brushed aside completely.

¶23

This Court without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, is of the view that bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.

[2023/RJJD/015064]

[CRLMB-1424/2023]

(3 of 3)

It is made clear that findings recorded and observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of the bail application. The trial court shall not be prejudiced by the same.

¶28

The petitioner shall however be at liberty to file a fresh application for bail after recording of the statement of prosecutrix before competent criminal court.

¶29

It is expected from the trial court that statement of prosecutrix will be recorded on priority.

¶30

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶31

Ravi Khandelwal

Kanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanti Lal 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

Mohit Nagpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sumera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappa Ram Vs Union of India through Ncb

Gopi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan