Dismissed

Arpit Kumawat So Shri Hari Prasad Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Aug 2023CRLMB/6764/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this judicial custody bail application, the petitioner claimed false implication, delay in FIR, and contradictions in prosecutrix statements. The Court found a specific rape allegation levelled during the trial and held evidence scrutiny unjustified at this stage, dismissing the bail application.

What did the court decide?

The instant bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Arpit Kumawat So Shri Hari Prasad Kumawat Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:18711]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6764/2023

¶4

Arpit Kumawat So Shri Hari Prasad Kumawat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gram Gurha-Salt, P.s. Nawan, District Nagaur, Present R/o Plot No. 87, Shyam Sarovar Colony, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. (At Present Accused Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal with Mr. Arihant Samdaria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶11

Order

¶12

23/08/2023

¶13

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner - Arpit Kumawat So Shri Hari Prasad Kumawat, in connection with FIR No.975/2022 registered at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences. The petitioner is behind the bars since 16.09.2022. The FIR was lodged after the delay of around two months from the date of alleged incident. There are

[2023:RJ-JP:18711]

[CRLMB-6764/2023]

(2 of 3)

contradictions in the reasons for delay in registering the FIR. Statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded during trial and there are serious contradictions in all the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and during trial also. Senior Secondary certificate has also not been submitted as an age proof of the prosecutrix. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for regular bail in this matter.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted that the allegation of rape has specifically and directly been levelled against the present petitioner. The father of the prosecutrix is a working man in the Army. He rarely get time off from his work. Documents related to the age of the prosecutrix has already been submitted. Statements of some of the important witnesses are to be recorded in the trial. Thus, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

Having considered the overall allegations leveled in the FIR, the impugned order and the contentions made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner.

¶21

It is emanating from the record that the during trial, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 10.05.2023 as PW-2 in which she levelled specific allegation of rape against the petitioner. At this stage, scrutiny and analysis of the evidence(s) does not appear to be justified.

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JP:18711]

[CRLMB-6764/2023]

Thus, without commenting upon the merits/demerits of the case and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant the benefit of regular bail to the accused-petitioner.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶27

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶28

SAHIL SONI /156

Arpit Kumawat So Shri Hari Prasad Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Kumawat So Shri Hari Prasad Kumawat 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

Bhanwar Singh Son of Raghuveer Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Neeraj Khandelwal S/O Shri Shambhu Dayal Khandelwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pooran Mal Meena S/O Shri Hariya Ram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohit Godala @ Kala Kabootar S/O Shri Rajesh Godala Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shakib Ali @ Murga @ Bachha Son of Jahid Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Toshib @ Toshif @ Toshiba @ Bachha Son of Abdul Rahim Vs State of Rajasthan