Single-judge order dismissing bail application in rape of minor case due to gravity of offence. Court noted non-cooperation by parties but decided on merits based on serious allegations.
Bail application stands dismissed.
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.
[2023/RJJP/004108]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 288/2023
Shahid @ Raja Kureshi Son Of Shri Ikramudeen Kureshi, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Kurishi Mohhalla, Shyam Nagar Colony Phulera, Thana Phulera District Jaipur (Presently Confined In Central Jail Phulera, District Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : None |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP |
| For Complainant(s) | : None |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
14/03/2023
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 after service.
Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the Court in judicial proceedings since last more than three weeks, though, they have no grievance against the Court administration.
The Apex Court in the judgment of Harish Uppal Vs. Union
of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 observed that non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one, rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial matters according to the law even in the absence of the parties and/or their Advocates.
[2023/RJJP/004108]
[CRLMB-288/2023]
(2 of 2)
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.254/2022 Registered at Police Station Phulera, Jaipur (Rural) for the offence(s) under Sections 363, 366-A, 323, 506 IPC, Sections 16 & 17 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act (later on offence(s) under Sections 363, 366-A, 323, 506, 504, 376(2-I) of IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3-2(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act was found to have been made out).
Petitioner in his pleadings mentioned that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since long. The police after completion of investigation has filed the charge-sheet and conclusion of trial may take long time. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner had raped a minor girl and prosecutrix in her statement fully supported the prosecution story. So, bail application be dismissed.
I have considered the pleadings of the petitioner as well as arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor.
Allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner had raped a minor girl. So, looking to the seriousness and gravity of offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Hence, the bail application filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /07
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for bail given the gravity of the offence involving rape of a minor.
Whether non-cooperation by parties warrants dismissal of bail application without appearance.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Shahid @ Raja Kureshi
State Of Rajasthan
Ramavtar
Narendra Singh Dhadha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
