Dismissed

Rajesh Garasiya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jul 2024CRLMB/3808/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC for offences under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and POCSO Sections 4/6. The prosecutrix's trial statement alleged rape; the court held consent, FIR delay and lack of injuries insignificant at this stage and dismissed the petition, directing expedited trial within four months.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:27351]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3808/2024

¶4

Rajesh Garasiya S/o Kalu Garasiya, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Gameti Fala, Kheda Ghati, Baleecha, Tehsil Nanyaganv, District Udaipur (Raj.)

¶5

(At Present Lodged In District Jail Udaipur)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

Suresh Damor S/o Kodra Gameti, R/o Kuwediya, Gram Panchayat Jayra, Teh. Naya Gaon, Udaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shekhar Mewara
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun Kumar, PP assisted by
	Mr. CP Marwan, AGA
	Nonepresent for respondent No.2

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order

¶13

08/07/2024

¶14

Service of notice upon respondent No.2 is complete. Despite that, no one is present on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶15

The prayer made in this bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is for grant of bail in connection with crime registered pursuant to first information report No.227/2023 of Police station Patiya, District Udaipur, in respect of offence(s) punishable under section(s) 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 4/6 of the Protection of Children from sexual offences act.

¶16

Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner is innocent person and a false case has been foisted against him; that entire allegations so leveled by the

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:27351]

[CRLMB-3808/2024]

police against the petitioner is totally false and baseless; that nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner; that there is no concrete evidence to show direct nexus between the petitioner and alleged crime, rather case of the prosecution is based on surmises and conjectures instead of sound legal evidence. With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present bail application be allowed and petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. It was further argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the applicant; that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency, rather they need to be dealt with severely. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that accused be kept in the custody.

¶22

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

¶23

Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record with reference to the law applicable, it is noticed that statement of prosecutrix has been recorded during the trial. The prosecutrix has specifically and categorically leveled allegations of rape against the petitioner; the victim is tender age of 15 years and the main argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of consent, delay in

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:27351]

[CRLMB-3808/2024]

lodging the F.I.R. and contents of medical report showing no injury on private parts of victim.

¶28

In considered view of this Court, all these three grounds are insignificant at this stage in a POCSO case, in view of statement of prosecutrix recorded during the trial.

¶29

In view of the enormous prima facie material placed on record in respect of the applicant, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation in the instant case, the role attributed to the petitioner, the antecedents of the applicant and the case set up against petitioner in its entirety, the petitioner is not found entitled to be released on bail.

¶30

Consequentially, instant bail petition fails and deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly. Observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merits of the case.

¶31

However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial, as early as possible, preferably within four months.

¶32

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶33

13-Payal/-

Rajesh Garasiya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajesh Garasiya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhoga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagirath Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics Neemach

Manohar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan