Allowed

Mahendra @ Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Mar 2024CRLMB/1777/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Jodhpur allowed a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The court observed delays in FIR registration and lack of photographic evidence for rape, suggesting only a case of Section 392 IPC (snatch theft) is made out. Bail was granted to prevent indefinite incarceration.

What did the court decide?

Granted release on bail requiring personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to appear in the trial court.

Mahendra @ Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan — Money Laundering | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:13730]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 1777/2024

¶4

Mahendra @ Shankar S/o Nathu Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kakadiya Ki Dhani, Surera, Police Station Dataramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan).

¶5

(Presently Lodged In Sub Jail Merta)

¶6

----Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶9

Usha Devi D/o Prahlad, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Beniya Ka Bas, Dataramgarh, District Sikar, At Present Village Lichana, Kuchaman City, District Deedwana Kuchaman (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Applicant(s)	: Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore with
	Mr. Deependra Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi,PP

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

21/03/2024

¶15

The present second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been filed by the applicant, who is in custody in connection with the FIR No.332/2023 registered at Police Station Kuchaman City, District Deedwana Kuchaman for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 506, 384 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The first bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15281/2023) of the present applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.01.2024 with a liberty to file afresh after filing of

[2024:RJ-JD:13730]

[CRLMB-1777/2024]

(2 of 4)

the charge-sheet. Learned counsel submits that now, the chargesheet has been filed.

¶21

While inviting Court’s attention towards the statement of the prosecutrix given under Section 161 of the Code, Mr. Rathore submitted that the allegation of rape is false and if at all there was any physical relation, the same was consensual.

¶22

Learned counsel further submitted that no case of extortion is made out inasmuch as neither from the applicant’s possession nor from the informant any photograph or obscene material has been recovered.

¶23

Admitting that as per prosecution, recovery of some ornaments and the fact that a loan was taken by the applicant against such articles, learned counsel submitted that no case more than an offence punishable under Section 392 is made out against the present applicant and prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by submitting that in her statement given under Section 161 and 164 of the Code, the prosecutrix has reiterated her version that the applicant had committed sexual assault and that the ornaments have been recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

So far as the statements of prosecutrix given under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code are concerned, they do not inspire confidence inasmuch as such allegations have been levelled after nine months of the alleged incident. If any such untoward incident

[2024:RJ-JD:13730]

[CRLMB-1777/2024]

(3 of 4)

had taken place, nobody prevented the prosecutrix from informing her relatives or from lodging the FIR.

¶31

So far as recovery of the ornaments and/or the revealation of the facts that the applicant has taken a loan by pawning the gold ornaments taken from the prosecutrix is concerned, this Court is of the view that at the best, a case for the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code is said to have been made out against the applicant in light of the injury which is shown in the injury report. No extortion is established because neither any photograph nor any incriminating material has been recovered from the applicant or from the prosecutrix. 10. Having regard to the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and recovery has been made and no investigation remains pending, this Court is of the view that the applicant, who is behind bars since 20.10.2023 cannot be kept incarcerated for indefinite period, as the trial will take substantial time. 11. Consequently, the present second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant – Mahendra @ Shankar S/o Nathu Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.332/2023 registered at Police Station Kuchaman City, District Deedwana Kuchaman 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.

¶32

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the

[CRLMB-1777/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:13730]

(4 of 4)

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.

¶37

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶38

620-Arvind/-

Mahendra @ Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra @ Shankar 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

Rajendra Kumar Vedwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nagendra Singh Chouhan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Virendra Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Prince Kumar @ Kala Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushila Vs State of Rajasthan

Kesha Ram @ Kesha Marwadi @ Kishan Marwadi Vs State of Rajasthan