Allowed

Raju v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 Oct 2023CRLMB/522/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur granted bail to the petitioner arrested for offences under IPC Sections 447, 376, 376(2), and 506. The court noted the consensual relationship history, recorded statements by the prosecutrix admitting visits, and the complainant's willingness to settle the dispute, concluding the trial would take long and bail was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The accused-petitioner Raju S/o Heera is to be released on bail if not wanted in any other case, upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Raju Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:36566]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 522/2023

¶4

Raju S/o Heera, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Phala Bachadiya Police Station Dhambola, District Dungarpur.

¶5

(At Present At Dist. Jail, Dungarpur)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jitendra Ojha.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan,P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

30/10/2023

¶14

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.240/2022, registered at Police Station Dhambola, District Dungarpur, for offences under Sections 447, 376, 376(2) & 506 IPC.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

¶16

Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the competent criminal court as P.W.-1, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in a consensual relationship with the prosecutrix who is a mature married woman. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix in her court statements has admitted that the

[2023:RJ-JD:36566]

[CRLMB-522/2023]

(2 of 3)

petitioner used to visit her in the absence of her husband. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case by the prosecutrix on their relations turning strained. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that statements of the prosecutrix have already been recorded before the competent criminal court and therefore there are no chances of the prosecutrix being influenced by the present petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the accusations against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that owing to some misunderstanding between the parties, the present F.I.R. was lodged by the prosecutrix against the present petitioner. However, now the parties have decided to settle their disputes amicably in the spirit of Lok Adalat and therefore he has no objection in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail.

¶22

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, so also the fact that statements of the prosecutrix have already been recorded before the competent criminal court wherein she has admitted that the petitioner used to visit her in the absence of her husband and the present F.I.R. came to be lodged by her only when the mediation proceedings between the parties failed, without expressing any opinion on

[2023:RJ-JD:36566]

[CRLMB-522/2023]

(3 of 3)

merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶27

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Raju S/o Heera arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.240/2022, registered at Police Station Dhambola, District Dungarpur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

¶28

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶29

376-Prashant/-

Raju v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Nanalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Pal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhdev Singh @ Nikka Vs State of Rajasthan

Tufan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhavesh @ Ganesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Gheesi Bai Vs State of Rajasthan