Allowed

Ramdev v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2024CRLAS/263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a criminal appeal challenging a bail refusal order, the High Court found that significant delay in lodging the FIR fatal to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection and granted bail to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Ramdev Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:15301]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 263/2024

¶4

Ramdev S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Barangana, P.s. Didwana, District Didwana (Raj) (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Parbatsar)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Maya Devi W/o Ramawatar, R/o Barangana P.s. Didwana, District Didwana (Raj)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramavtar For Respondent(s) : Mr. BR Bishnoi, PP

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

05/04/2024

¶14

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) of SC/ST (PA) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 370/2023 registered at Police Station Didwana, District Didwana-Kuchaman for the offences under Sections 376D, 376(2)(N), 342 & 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(p) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 against the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:15301]

[CRLAS-263/2024]

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant has been falsely implicated and the complainant has vindictively proceeded against the applicant which can be discerned from the delay in lodging the FIR, which was lodged after more than two months.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that had the story portrayed by the informant (prosecturix) been correct, then she ought to have lodged the FIR or informed her relatives immediately or soon thereafter.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., has levelled serious allegation of commission of sexual assault against the applicant, therefore, no indulgence be granted to the appellant.

¶21

Nobody appears on behalf of the victim despite service of notice.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the contents of FIR and statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶23

It is clear that the FIR came to be lodged on 22.10.2023 in relation to an incident, which took place between 8^th August, 2023 to 10^th August, 2023 and thereafter, one more similar incident of commission of sexual assault was repeated as alleged by the prosecutrix.

¶24

This Court finds substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that delay in reporting the incident to the police or to her relatives is fatal to her case.

[2024:RJ-JD:15301]

[CRLAS-263/2024]

(3 of 3)

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the appellant is behind the bars since 24.10.2023 and trial of the case is likely to take substaintial long time, this Court is of the opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

¶29

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta is set aside.

¶30

It is ordered that the accused-appellants Ramdev S/o Ramniwas arrested in connection with FIR No. 370/2023 registered at Police Station Didwana, District Didwana-Kuchaman for the offences shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

6-raksha/-

Ramdev v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdev 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

Dr. Deepanshu Singhal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Chandra Kala Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Mal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Singh @ Bittu Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Shafik @ Saddam @ Bhola Vs State of Rajasthan