Partly allowed

Shareeph S/O Shri Jumma Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2024CRLMB/549/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC Bench at Jaipur dismissed Shareeph's second bail application in a gang rape case involving POCSO and SC/ST Act offences due to persistent allegations against him. Conversely, bail was allowed for Buddhi Prakash and Roshan, as the prosecutrix failed to identify them during trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Buddhi Prakash @ Vinod and Roshan on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each. Bail application of Shareeph dismissed.

Shareeph S/O Shri Jumma Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:8259]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 549/2024

¶4

Shareeph S/o Shri Jumma Khan, R/o Mandawari, Police Station Mandawari, District Dausa At Present R/o Plot No. 45, Krishna Vihar, Near Mahila Sadan, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (At Present Confined In District Jail Karauli)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 1184/2024

¶11

Buddhi Prakash @ Vinod S/o Radheyshyam, R/o Jatwara Khurd, Khairda, Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur, At Presently Residing At 18, Gayatri Nagar, Near Goshala, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Karauli).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 1209/2024

¶17

Roshan S/o Sonpal @ Sohanpal, R/o Nangal Sherpur, Police Station Balghat, District Karauli (Raj.). (Presently Confined At District Jail Karauli).

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

1.		State Of Rajasthan, Throug	h Pp
2.		Bachhi Devi W/o Raju Lal R/o Sandera, Nadauti, Karauli.	Bairwa, District
3.		Victim, R/o ----Resp	ondents
For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. R. S. Bhardwaj Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi Mr. Lakhan Singh Jadoun Mr. Sameer Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP Mr. Dharmendra Joshi Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶22

16/02/2024

¶23

These second instant bail applications have been filed under

¶24

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who have been

[2024:RJ-JP:8259]

[CRLMB-549/2024]

(2 of 4)

arrested in connection with FIR No.349/2022 registered at Police Station Nadauti, District Karauli for the offence under Section 363 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376D and 120B of IPC and Sections 5/6 and 16/17 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

¶29

The first bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh bail applications after recording the testimony of prosecutrix. Now, the prosecutrix of this case has been examined during the course of trial as PW-11. Thus, these second bail applications have been preferred.

¶30

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner- Shareeph submits that there is contradiction in the testimony of the prosecutrix. He submits that petitioner is in custody since 17.01.23 and further custody of the petitioner (Shareeph) would not serve any fruitful purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioners namely- Buddhi Prakash @ Vinod and Roshan submit that accused-petitioners were shown to the prosecutrix via video conferencing and they have not been identified by her during the course of trial. He submits that prosecutrix clearly admitted the fact that the aforementioned accused persons were not involved in crime. Petitioners are in custody since January' 2023. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:8259]

[CRLMB-549/2024]

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application.

¶35

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that this is a matter of gang rape and a minor girl who is aged about 16 and a half year was raped by several persons. He submits that all three petitioners have been named by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief. He further submits that identification through video conferencing was not proper. Thus, petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶36

I have considered the contentions.

¶37

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant, especially the fact that there is consistent allegation against accused-petitioner- Shareeph, of commission of rape upon the prosecutrix. Therefore, I do not deem it a fit case for grant of bail to the accused-petitioner- Shareeph. Thus, the present bail application of accused-petitioner- Shareeph is dismissed.

¶38

As far as bail applications of accused-petitioners namelyBuddhi Prakash @ Vinod and Roshan is concerned, it appears from the testimony of the prosecutrix that she could not identify the accused-petitioners, when they were shown via video conferencing during the course of trial and she clearly admitted the fact that the aforementioned accused-petitioners were not involved in the crime; charge-sheet has been files as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:8259]

[CRLMB-549/2024]

merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 1184/2024 & 1209/2024

¶43

These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- 1) Buddhi Prakash @ Vinod S/o Radheyshyam and 2) Roshan S/o Sonpal @ Sohanpal, shall be released on bail provided each one of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶44

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶45

GAUTAM JAIN /13-15

Shareeph S/O Shri Jumma Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shareeph S/O Shri Jumma Khan 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

Kailash Bhati S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Bhati, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kavita Kukana D/O Mota Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Suman W/O Virendra Yadav, Vs State of Rajasthan

Noor Mohammad S/O Shahjad Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Shri Ram Singh

Arun Kumar S/O Shri Navratan Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan