Allowed

Arjun Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 May 2023CRLMB/528/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences including IPC 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) and POCSO, the High Court allowed bail. The Court accepted the view that the prosecutrix supported consensual relationship and the petitioner was an adolescent, granting bail with bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail: Personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/ each.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/013482]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 528/2023

¶4

Arjun Kumar S/o Prahlad Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Komta Ps Sayala Dist. Jalore (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Jalore)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PradeepKumar Shah
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shiv Kumar Bhati, PP assisted by
	Mr. Avinash Godara
	Mr. Mool Singh Panwar, for the comlainant

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

04/05/2023

¶13

This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.162/2022 Police Station Sayla, District Jalore, for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n), 344 of IPC and under Sections 3/4, 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.

¶15

Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the competent criminal court on 06.04.2023, learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix stayed with the petitioner of her free will and violation for more than 17 days at Ajmer. Learned counsel submitted that from the statements of the prosecutrix, it is evident that she had consensual sexual relationship with the present petitioner and

[2023/RJJD/013482]

[CRLMB-528/2023]

(2 of 2)

thus, there is no allegation of sexual assault upon the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner at the time of incident, was an adolescent, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid statements and also without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

¶22

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Arjun Kumar S/o Prahlad Ram , arrested in connection with FIR No. 162/2022 Police Station Sayla, District Jalore, shall be released on bail; provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Petitioner shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶24

40-KshamaD/-

Arjun Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Kumar 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

Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kesar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohitash Vs State of Rajasthan

Mani Bharduwaj Vs State of Rajasthan