Allowed

Newalal S/O Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 May 2024CRLMB/356/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for accused arrested in a POCSO/IPC sexual offence case. Prosecutrix alleged rape only in court statement; DNA report showed semen on victim's underwear did not match petitioner's DNA profile. Court enlarged petitioner on bail with bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to satisfaction of trial judge.

Newalal S/O Radheyshyam 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. 356/2024

¶3

Newalal S/o Radheyshyam, R/o Near Pani Ki Tanki, Village Dhikoli, P.s. Kapren, Dist. Bundi (At Present Confined In Central Jail Bundi)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhadia, PP Mr. Samarth Sharma

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶10

Order

¶11

07/05/2024

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 138/2023 registered at Police Station Kapren, District Bundi for the offence(s) under Sections 376-D, 342, 354 and 506 of IPC and Sections 7/8, 5G/6 of POCSO Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C, prosecutrix has not levelled charges of committing rape by the petitioner. In the court’s statement PW-3 prosecutrix has levelled charges of rape against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in course of investigation underwear of victim, vaginal swab and underwear of

¶14

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-356/2024]

¶15

accused-petitioner and blood sample were collected and sent for DNA and FSL analysis. In the FSL report human semen was detected but after DNA examination, DNA profile of petitioner did not match with the DNA profile obtained from exhibit-1 (under wear of victim). The accused petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2023 and trial of the case will take considerable time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accusedpetitioner.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and court’s statement has specifically alleged that petitioner committed sexual offence with her. Age of the prosecutrix is below 16 years, therefore considering the gravity of the offence, bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. Prosecutrix in her statement rendered under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C did not allege the accused petitioner committing rape with her, in the court’s statement prosecutrix has stated that petitioner committed rape with her. During the course of investigation the vaginal swab, blood on FTA card, underwear of prosecutrix and underwear of accused petitioner alongwith the blood on FTA card of accused petitioner were collected for sending into FSL and further for DNA analysis. DNA report specifically states that :-

¶17

“on the basis of DNA examination performed on the exhibits provided, it is concluded that, the male DNA profile obtained from exhibit no. 5 (Blood sample of accused Nevalal on FTA card) is not

¶18

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-356/2024]

¶19

matching with the amplified allesles of male DNA profile obtained from exhibit no. 1 (underwear of victim).”

¶20

In the FSL report human semen was detected from the underwear of the victim. The human semen detected from the underwear of the victim did not match with the DNA profile of the accused petitioner.

¶21

Therefore considering the above facts, without commenting anything on the merit of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Newalal S/o Radheyshyam in connection with FIR No. 138/2023 registered at Police Station Kapren, District Bundi 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.

¶23

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶24

Ashu/48

Newalal S/O Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Newalal S/O Radheyshyam 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

Narsi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan Vs Union of India

Sumerram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivraj S/O Prabhulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratan Singh S/O Shri Aashu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Saini S/O Laxminarayan Saini Vs State of Rajasthan