Allowed

Ramraj S/O Durgalal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2024CRLMB/2695/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application of an accused facing murder and rape charges. The Court held that the pendency of a related FIR lodged by the petitioner's wife against the deceased justified releasing the petitioner on bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Ramraj S/O Durgalal Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2695/2024

¶3

Ramraj S/o Durgalal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ren P.s. Dablana District Bundi Raj. (At Present Confined At District Jail Bundi)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan Mr. Sanjay Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Gupta Chopra, PP Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

05/07/2024

¶12

This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner in connection with FIR No. 24/2024 registered at Police Station Dablana, District Bundi for offences under Section 341, 323, 302/34 IPC.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner escorted the deceased to the house of the petitioner. The reason of coming to the house of the petitioner has been stated by the complainant himself in the FIR i.e. the deceased was having relation with the daughter of the petitioner, therefore they went to the house of the petitioner. He further submits that the wife of the accused-petitioner has also lodged an FIR No. 43/2024 at Police Station Dablana, District Bundi against the deceased and

¶15

[CRLMB-2695/2024]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

one Jugraj for offences u/S 376(D), 452, 459 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the Pocso Act in respect to the allegations of committing rape by the accused therein with the daughter of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such circumstances the petitioner deserves to the enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that there is a cogent evidence on record which clearly speaks that the petitioner has committed murder of the deceased. He further submitted that Jugraj and the daughter of the petitioner in clear terms have stated allegations of committing murder against the petitioner.

¶19

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant.

¶20

The contents of FIR lodged by the complainant clearly speaks that deceased and the complainant went to the house of the accused-petitioner and the reasons for going there has been specifically stated in the FIR i.e. the deceased was having love affair with the daughter of the petitioner. Even in a case of having love affair with a girl aged about 16 years, no person has license to reach the house of the girl or her parent’s because such kind of incidence destroy the reputation of the family in the community and nobody can tolerate such things. In the present case the girl is a minor girl of 16 years and anyone cannot claim to be keep her with him. In view of the customs of the Indian society, the accused-petitioner, who is the parent of the minor girl has a full

¶21

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-2695/2024]

¶22

right to oppose any kind of such act of any person, which is against the interest of his minor daughter and their reputation in the society.

¶23

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and so also the fact that a criminal case (FIR No. 43/2024) against the complainant and deceased lodged by the wife of the petitioner is pending investigation, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of this case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶24

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶25

GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /21

Ramraj S/O Durgalal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramraj S/O Durgalal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh @ Sonu S/O Ganpat Lal Khichi Vs State of Rajasthan

Vaishali W/O Girendra Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Guman Singh Son of Lamxan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Devi W/O Shri Chanduram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Parewa S/O Sh. Harji Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu Rao S/O Shri Jagdish Rao Vs State of Rajasthan