Disposed

Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2023CRLR/39/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision petitions challenging an order taking cognizance in a POCSO and IPC case. The High Court accepted the prayer for protection from arrest, directed petitioners to move bail applications, and stayed process execution until the return date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to appear and move regular bail applications by 31.05.2023; no process to be executed until then.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/014608]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 39/2023

¶4

Manohar Singh S/o Sh. Eshwar Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Khera Herabas, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Jagdish S/o Sh. Bachhan Singh, Khera Herabas, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 10/2023

¶12

Arjun Singh S/o Sh. Chain Singh, Aged About 60 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Khera Herabas, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Raj.

¶13

Bhom Singh S/o Sh. Arjun Singh, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Khera Herabas, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Raj.

¶14

Bhanwarsingh S/o Sh. Harisingh, Aged About 55 Years, B/ c Rajput, R/o Khera Herabas, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Raj.

¶15

Ganesh Singh S/o Sh. Megh Singh, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Khera Herabas, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Raj.

¶16

Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Mool Singh, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Khera Herabas, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Raj.

¶17

Sugan Singh @ Sonsingh S/o Sh. Megh Singh, Aged About 47 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Khera Herabas, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Raj.

¶18

----Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶21

Jagdish S/o Sh. Bachhan Singh, R/o Khera Herabas, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Raj.

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

[CRLR-39/2023]

¶24

[2023/RJJD/014608]	(2 of 4)
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. I.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Abhishek Purohit,AGA

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶26

Order

¶27

09/05/2023

¶28

By way of filing the instant criminal revision petitions challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act 2012, Nagaur in F.R. No.04/2016 arising out of FIR No.43/2016 registered at the Police Station Surpaliya, District Nagaur whereby the learned trial Judge declined to accept the negative final report, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 143, 323, 336, 451, 354A of the IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act and issued process against the petitioners.

¶29

Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that for the accusations of forming unlawful assembly, beating, housebreaking and outraging the modesty of the victim as well as for the offence under Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act, a report came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant Jagdish on 07.07.2015. Upon registration of the FIR, the matter was thoroughly investigated by the police and they reached to the conclusion that no offence, as alleged by the complainant, was committed by the accused-petitioners and thus, a negative final report was submitted in the Court concerned. A protest petition was also filed by the

[2023/RJJD/014608]

[CRLR-39/2023]

(3 of 4)

complainant whereupon the learned trial Court initiated proceeding under Sections 200/202 of the Cr.P.C. and conducted inquiry in accordance with the procedure whereafter, after considering the material available on record and recording the statements of the witnesses, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences alleged and issued process vide order dated 24.11.2022, which is under assail by way of filing the instant criminal revision petitions before this Court.

¶34

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to agitate the order taking cognizance at this stage, but seeks protection from arrest and custody in the event the petitioners appear before the trial Court pursuant to the impugned order.

¶35

The prayer so made by the petitioners seems to be genuine and thus deserves to be accepted.

¶36

Accordingly, the revision petitions are disposed of with the directions to the petitioners to appear before the trial Court on or before 31.05.2023 and to move regular bail applications. In the event, the petitioners appear and move regular bail application(s), they shall be released on bail on the very same day, upon furnishing surety and bonds as per the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. Till 31.05.2023, no process shall be executed upon the petitioners. It is made clear that the grounds raised herein in these petitions regarding legality and correctness of the order taking

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/014608]

[CRLR-39/2023]

cognizance dated 15.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act 2012, Nagaur and the plea of false implication can be raised by the petitioners before the trial Court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge and it is expected that the learned trial Judge shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶41

All pending applications, including the stay petition, also stand disposed of.

¶42

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶43

140-141-Mamta/-

Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Singh 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

Ravindrakumar Sharma Vs Gautam Bohra

Sohan @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaypal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Upendra Dave Vs State of Rajasthan