Allowed

Shimbhu Nath v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2024CRLMB/339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed the bail application of the accused-petitioner in a rape case (IPC 376-D). The court found substance in the claim that the case was false due to inconsistencies in the victim's statement and granted bail upon furnishing a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner is enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:3986]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 339/2024

¶4

Shimbhu Nath S/o Shri Nennath, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Mugdada, Tehsil Riyan Bari, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Sub-Jail, Merta, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Om Prakash Joshi Mr. Karan Joshi
For Respondent(s)	: Mohd. Javed Gauri,PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

25/01/2024

¶12

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶13

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	480/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Merta City
3.	District	Nagaur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Section 376-D of the IPC
5.	Offences added,if any	-
6.	Date of passing of impugn order	ed 08.12.2023

¶14

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:3986]

[CRLMB-339/2024]

the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶19

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. The victim is a grown up married lady aged about 52 years. Prima facie, there is substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri OP Joshi, that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner with an anterior object as no such incident has happened as narrated in the FIR. He drew Court’s attention towards many circumstances as well as the incongruency in her statement during the nascent stage of the investigation. For this it is argued that the written report came to be submitted by none other than the victim herself wherein the allegations of subjecting her to rape were made against the petitioner and one Lakha Ram @ Laky S/o Ummed Ram whereas, when she was examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by a Judicial Magistrate on 20.11.2023 she resiled from her earlier stand and chose to confine her allegation towards the petitioner only. The infirm stand and material changes in her statement making support to the submission of falsity of allegation raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it is not felt appropriate to keep the petitioner

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:3986]

[CRLMB-339/2024]

behind the bars, more particularly, in view of the fact that the co-accused Lucky has been granted bail by this Court on 04.01.2024. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶27

19-divya/-

Shimbhu Nath v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shimbhu Nath 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

Deen Dayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Purkha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiv Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaitan Singh Nayak Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankarlal Vs State of Rajasthan