Dismissed

Manoj Kumar S/O Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2024CRLMB/354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought bail for offences under Sections 354D and 376(2)(N) IPC alleging consent. The High Court rejected the application, relying on the prosecutrix's Section 164 statement, and directed the trial court to record the victim's statement as the first witness.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Direction given to trial court to record victim's statement as first witness.

Manoj Kumar S/O Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:11511]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.

¶4

354/2024

¶5

Manoj Kumar S/o Rajendra, R/o Rampuriya P.s. Itawa, Dist. Kota. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P P

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶12

06/03/2024

¶13

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No.510/23 registered at Police Station Itawa District Kota wherein he is charged for offences punishable under Sections 354D, 376 (2) (N) of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the D.O.B of the prosecutrix is 20.07.2005. Counsel submits that report of the alleged incident of rape has been lodged after a delay of 1/2 month. Counsel submits that instant case appears to be a case of consent which has been converted into a case of rape. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed therefore, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner.

[2024:RJ-JP:11511]

[CRLMB-354/2024]

(2 of 2)

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and stated that specific allegation of rape has been levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and under these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to get any indulgence of bail.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶20

Looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioner by the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application stands rejected.

¶21

Hence, the present bail application stands dismissed.

¶22

However, the trial Court is directed to record the statement of the victim on priority basis as first witness.

¶23

Thereafter, the petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh bail application before the trial Court.

¶24

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶25

Diksha/75

Manoj Kumar S/O Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar S/O Rajendra 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

Nawalkishor Meena @ N.K. Meena S/O Shri Sharawanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hariram Gurjer S/O Harinarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Mamta Devi W/O Lt. Shriya Nath @ Sariya Jogi Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Kumar S/O Shri Bhagirathmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Singh @ Karkalli S/O Hukum Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashutosh Garg S/O Sh. Krishna Gopal Garg Vs Union of India