Third bail application rejected. Court held that given the serious nature of rape allegations involving a minor prosecutrix and multiple examined witnesses, bail was not inclined to be granted at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:19450]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 1222/2024
Nana Lal S/o Bhoora Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Veer Bhan Ji Ka Kheda P.s Kankroli District Rajsamand (Presently Lodged In District Jail Rajsamand)
----Petitioner
| Versus |
|---|
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Ms. Shobha Prabhakar |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP |
| Mr. Lovekush Samar for complainant |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
03/05/2024
The present third bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.242/2021 registered at Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(3), 376(2)(N), 354(A) & 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act.
The second bail application was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before rejection of second bail application, prosecutrix has been examined as PW.1 on 26.10.2021 before the trial Court and other witnesses PW.2 – Jagdish Chandra Kumawat, PW.3 – Rekha Kumawat & PW.4 - Dayashankar have been examined on 12.11.2021, PW.5 – Kalu Kumhar & PW.6 - Amit have been
(2 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JD:19450]
[CRLMB-1222/2024]
examined on 23.03.2022 and PW.7 - Prachi has been examined on 19.04.2022. Other witnesses PW.8 to PW.15 have been examined before the trial Court after rejection of second bail application. Counsel submits that material witness PW.5, PW.6 & PW.7 have not been considered at the time of rejection of second bail, although all these witnesses have been declared hostile but during cross-examination they have admitted that accused-petitioner got married to the prosecutrix and both resided together in a house. Counsel submits that there are major contradictions in the statements of witnesses. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.08.2021 and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, it is prayed that benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
I have heard and considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the material available on record.
At the time of rejection of second bail, seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court. It is not disputed that the prosecutrix (PW.1) was merely 16 years old at the time of occurrence and a specific allegation has been levelled against the present accused-petitioner that he committed rape with the prosecutrix.
In these circumstances, this Court in not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Hence, the third bail
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1222/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:19450]
application filed by the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the
trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
85-Rashi/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused facing charges of rape and offences under POCSO.
Whether specific circumstances and trial delays justify granting third bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nana Lal
State Of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
