Allowed

Bijendra @ Birju S/O Gyarsiram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2024CRLMB/481/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC for an accused in a rape case where the prosecutrix's Section 164 statement did not implicate him and FSL DNA profiling did not match his sample. Court enlarged petitioner on bail on a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail: personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each to satisfaction of trial judge.

Bijendra @ Birju S/O Gyarsiram Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12181]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 481/2024

¶4

Bijendra @ Birju S/o Gyarsiram, R/o Village Khohari Tehsil And Police Station Bansur Alwar District Alwar (Raj.) (The Accused Petitioner In Judicial Custody In Jail, Alwar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Manish Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. M.S. Saini, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶10

Order

¶11

11/03/2024

¶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.378/2022 registered at Police Station Bansur, District Alwar for the offence(s) under Sections 366, 376(d) & 120B of IPC Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has uttered nothing against the present petitioner. While recording statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate prima-facie examined the prosecutrix regarding her mental capacity to render the statements and after assuring that she is mentally fit, recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein, she has not stated that the accused-petitioner committed rape with her. The

[2024:RJ-JP:12181]

[CRLMB-481/2024]

(2 of 3)

accused-petitioner is in judicial custody since long and chargesheet has not been filed before the concerned trial Court. The trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application may be allowed.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and contends that in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has specifically named the accused-petitioner and other co-accused, who committed rape with her. He further submits that the prosecutrix was not mentally fit and also contends that from the FSL report, it has been established that the sexual offence was committed with the prosecutrix. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application of accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶19

Heard and perused the charge-sheet and case diary. 5. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has not narrated that accused-petitioner committed rape with her. In the FSL report, it was found that DNA profile, obtained from other co-accused- Ashok, is matching with the source of DNA profile obtained from underwear of victim. The FSL report also shows that source of DNA profile, obtained from blood sample of accused-petitioner, is not matching with the source of DNA profile, obtained from underwear of victim. Therefore, considering the FSL report, that DNA profile obtained from blood sample of accused-petitioner is not matching with the source of DNA profile obtained from the underwear of victim. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶20

[CRLMB-481/2024]

¶21

[2024:RJ-JP:12181]

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Bijendra @ Birju S/o Gyarsiram in connection with FIR No.378/2022 registered at Police Station Bansur, District Alwar 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 and as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶24

Keshav/44

Bijendra @ Birju S/O Gyarsiram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijendra @ Birju S/O Gyarsiram 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

Kumarchand S/O Mangalram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Samay Singh S/O Ram Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sumit S/O Raj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Asharam S/O Jamna Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gopal @ Gupla S/O Shri Digambar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar Meena @ Narsi Meena S/O Shri Hanuman Sahay Meena Vs State of Rajasthan