Allowed

Bhairaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Apr 2024CRLMB/1278/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioners accused of offences under IPC and POCSO Act, noting their coaccused were acquitted and they were absolved of POCSO charges.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners Mukesh, Bhairaram and Bhanwara Ram to be released on bail by executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Bhairaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:16358]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 4246/2024

¶4

Mukesh S/o Haruram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bendo Ka Bera, Police Station Matoda, District Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Mularam S/o Ummedaram, Aged About 48 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Matoda Police Station, Matoda, District Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1278/2024 Bhairaram S/o Modaram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Nousar, P.s. Matoda, Dist. Jodhpur Rural. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Jodhpur)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2264/2024 Bhanwara Ram S/o Jiya Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Suvawaliya Ps Shergarh Dist Jodhpur. (Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi
	Mr. JVS Deora
	Mr. Tarun Dhaka
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri,PP

¶22

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

[2024:RJ-JD:16358]

[CRLMB-4246/2024]

(2 of 3)

Order

16/04/2024

The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No.29/2023 dated 19.02.2023 of Police Station Matoda District Jodhpur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 370(3), 342 IPC and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the coaccused Sohan Ram and Ummeda Ram have been acquitted by learned trial court vide order dated 11.08.2023. They also submit that the learned trial court has absolved the petitioners from the offences punishable under Sections 16/17 of the POCSO Act vide order dated 20.03.2024 in case No.30/23. The said order is taken on record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that the prosecutrix in her statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has deposed that she married Sohan Ram upon her sweet will and also deposed that nobody has forced or compelled her. They further submit that the prosecutrix has deposed that she is about 20 years of age.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and looking to the fact that the prosecutrix in her statements under section 164 of Cr.P.C. has specifically said that she was not forcibly taken away and she has married Sohan Ram on her sweet

[CRLMB-4246/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:16358]

(3 of 3)

will and no allegations have been levelled upon the present petitioners and also looking to the fact that the petitioners have been absolved of the offences under Sections 16/17 of the POCSO Act, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶36

Accordingly, these bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that petitioners Mukesh S/o Haruram, Bhairaram S/o Modaram and Bhanwara Ram S/o Jiya Ram shall be released on bail ; provided each of them executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶37

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶38

ajay/surabhii424-1/-

Bhairaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhairaram 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

Jai Prakash Vs Vimal Suthar

Vimla Devi Vs Land Acquisition Officer, Pali

Mrigendra Singh Vs Jyotika

M/S Fatehram Madan Lal Vs Khemchand

Geeta Devi Vs Kusum Devi

Bhanwara Ram Vs State of Rajasthan