Allowed

Sanjay v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Feb 2024CRLMB/379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., noting that the victim's statements indicated she was a consenting party and there was no documentary evidence proving she was under 18. Relying on parental testimony regarding age and the prospect of a lengthy trial, bail was granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Acc petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Sanjay Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:9599]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 379/2024

¶4

Sanjay S/o Raju Bhil, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ugai Police Station Kekari Dist Ajmer (At Preseent Lodged At District Jail Bhilwara )

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

Ramsavrup Bhil S/o Ugama Bhil, R/o Gangithala Jahajpur Dist Bhilwara

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jaipal Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun Kumar,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶12

26/02/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing

¶14

an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

¶15

tabulated herein below:

¶16

S.No.	Particulars	of the Case
1.	FIR Number	326/2022
2.	Concerned Police Station	Jahajpur
3.	District	Bhilwara
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 363 and 342 of the I.P.C.
5.	Offences added, if any	Sections 366, 344, 376 (2) (n) and 376 (3) of the I.P.C. as well as Sections 3/4(ii) and 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	18.12.2023

¶17

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:9599]

[CRLMB-379/2024]

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material as made available to this Court, particularly the statement of the victim PW-1 Pooja and her mother PW-4 Smt. Lali.

¶24

From a perusal of the statements of both the witnesses mentioned above, the submission made by the defence gets fortification that the victim was all over a consenting party since she went with the accused at her own free will and volition probably on account of promise to marry and whereafter she went him at several places and used public transport also, however, she did not raise alarm for assistance or made hue and cry. She has been examined in the trial, thus, there remains no apprehension regarding tampering and hampering her. As far as the question of age of the victim is concerned, there is no document on record to substantiate the fact that she was below the age of 18 years at the relevant point of time. From the perusal of her statement and statement of her mother, prima facie it gives support to the defence plea that there is no material to show or suggest that she was below the age of 18 years at the relevant point of

[CRLMB-379/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:9599]

(3 of 3)

time. PW-4 Smt. Lali who is mother of the victim has categorically stated in her statement that her another daughter Samla is aged of 25 years having three issues and victim is two years younger than to her. In the case of Vishnu @ Undriya vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2006 (SC) 508 , it has been propounded by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court that when a question regarding the age of the son or daughter comes up, the testimony of his/her parents should be given weight over the other evidence and the same should be given primacy over the other evidence. 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶31

40-Ashutosh/-

Sanjay v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shafi Mohammad Vs State

Shyam Prakash Srivastava Vs State of Rajasthan

Iswar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Channa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan