Allowed

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2024CRLMB/1709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a second bail application filed by Jagdish, a petitioner arrested under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 376, 323, and 447 IPC. The Court noted discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., finding this raised doubts about her trustworthiness, and consequently ordered the release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail to execute a personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹25,000 each.

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:24673]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1709/2024

¶4

Jagdish S/o Hurta @ Surajmal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Teemu Tapra Likaniya, Police Station Parsola, Dist. Pratapgarh (Rajasthan). (Presently Lodged At District Jail Pratapgarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K.Bhati, Public Prosecutor

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

29/05/2024

¶13

The present second bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the applicant, who is in custody in connection with the FIR No.156/2023, registered at Police Station Parsola, District Pratapgarh for the offences punishable under sections 376, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The first bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14707/2023) of the present applicant was dismissed by this Court on 20.12.2023.

¶14

Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after rejection of first bail application, the statement of prosecutrix has been recorded on 15.04.2024 in the Court and hence, there is change in the circumstances, since the first bail application was rejected. He argued that a perusal of the statement of the

[2024:RJ-JD:24673]

[CRLMB-1709/2024]

(2 of 3)

prosecutrix that the story portrayed by the prosecutrix is unbelievable rather false.

¶19

He further submitted that delay of about 20 days in lodging the First Information Report is fatal and argued that the FIR has been lodged vindictively and prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having gone through the material available on record, including the statement of prosecutrix given under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the view that may be, 20 days’ delay in lodging complaint is not fatal as held in the previous order. But the difference in her version in the statements under sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. raises doubt about the trustworthiness of the prosecutrix.

¶22

In her statement before the Police, she said that the complainant had stuffed cloth in her mouth whereas, in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she said that she got unconscious because of the injury on her head. The prosecutrix is a major lady and has not been able to show any plausible reason for not reporting the incident to Police or at least to her relatives. This Court is, therefore, inclined to enlarge the applicant (who is behind bars since 09.10.2023) on bail.

¶23

Consequently, the present second bail application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant – Jagdish S/o Hurta @ Surajmal arrested in

[2024:RJ-JD:24673]

[CRLMB-1709/2024]

(3 of 3)

connection with FIR No.156/2023 registered at Police Station Parsola, District Pratapgarh shall be released on bail; provided that he executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- and two sureties of ₹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.

¶28

Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 11. Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶29

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶30

6-akansha/-

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish 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

Prabhu Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bharat Bhushan @ Vicky Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Sita Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan