Allowed

Yusuf Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2024CRLMB/565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jodhpur High Court allowed the second bail application of Yusuf Ali accused of sexual offences and abduction. The court noted inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's account regarding abduction versus voluntary association and vicinity of events, prima facie favouring bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to appear on all dates of hearing.

Yusuf Ali Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:5606]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 565/2024

¶4

Yusuf Ali S/o Munsab Ali, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ward No. 07 Sardargarh, P.s. Jaitsar Dist. Sriganganagar. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail. Sriganganagar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	PankajKumar Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Mahipal Bishnoi, PP RS Gill

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

02/02/2024

¶13

This second application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with FIR No.160/2023, registered at Police Station Suratgarh Sadar, District Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 376-D, 365, 458, 323, 341, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

The first bail application being (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12791/2023) filed on behalf of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh, once the charge-sheet is filed.

¶15

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix had gone with the present applicant and co-accused Ajay at her own free will and volition and the FIR has been lodged to save face only when she along with the present applicant was

[2024:RJ-JD:5606]

[CRLMB-565/2024]

(2 of 4)

caught by her relatives near Sherwood school, when the applicant and co-accused Ajay were coming to drop her back to her house.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant highlighted that the conclusion of charge-sheet shows that the applicant and the prosecutrix had series of telephonic conversation and argued that the relationship, if any, between the applicant and prosecutrix was consensual.

¶21

Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the statement of other relatives of the prosecutrix and submitted that none of them have stated of any cry for help by the prosecutrix, when she along with applicant was intercepted by the family members.

¶22

He argued that had there been any forceful assault or abduction, the prosecutrix as per natural human conduct must have complained to the family members of the matter, as soon as she was found by them.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant further invited Court’s attention towards the site map of the house of the prosecutrix (page No. 40 of the paper book) and submitted that statement of prosecutrix that the applicant forcefully took her, when she went to the bathroom to ease herself, is absolutely false as the bathroom is situated in the room only and there was no occasion for her to come in the open area “X” from where she had allegedly been abducted by the applicant.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that the statement of prosecutrix under Sections 161

[2024:RJ-JD:5606]

[CRLMB-565/2024]

(3 of 4)

and 164 of the Cr.P.C has remained consistent, that the present applicant had abducted her and forcefully took her to the field of co-accused Ajay, where she was sexually assaulted. They prayed that the bail application of the present applicant be rejected.

¶29

Heard learned cousnel for the parties and perused the record, including the statement of prosecutrix and her relatives and the site inspection report. 10. It is to be noted that neither from the statement of the prosecutrix nor any of her relatives, it has come that when the prosecutrix was found by her relatives (coming with the applicant), she seemed distressed or disturbed. It is noteworthy that even when she was intercepted she did not cry for help.

¶30

That apart, perusal of the site inspection report reveals that the bathroom is attached to the room itself where the prosecutrix was purpotedly sleeping. The room so also the house has a door. Therefore, the prosecutrix had no reason to come in the open area "X" if she really did not intend to go with the applicant with whom she had been talking since long.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶32

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Yusuf Ali S/o Munsab Ali arrested in connection with FIR No.160/2023, registered at Police Station Suratgarh Sadar, District Sriganganagar, shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:5606]

[CRLMB-565/2024]

Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶37

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶38

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶39

75-raksha/-

Yusuf Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yusuf Ali 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

Maga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Birbal Ram @ Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Raj.Tractors and Motors Vs State and Anr.

Raj.Tractors and Motors Vs State and Anr.

Bimla Devi Vs State of Rajasthan