Allowed

Laxman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 May 2024CRLMB/619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC for offences including rape and abduction, the High Court allowed bail after finding substance in the defence claim of consent, noting the victim's own report mentioned age 19. The court held that at the pre-conviction stage, bail is the rule.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the trial Judge.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23768]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 619/2024

¶4

Laxman S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Talab Phala, Singhatwara, Thana Jawar Mines, Dist. Udaipur. (At Present Lodged At Dist. Jail, Nagaur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kapil Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶11

20/05/2024

¶12

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶13

S.No.	Particulars	of the Case
1.	FIR Number	179/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Gogunda
3.	District	Udaipur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 366, 343 & 376(2) of the IPC
5.	Offences added, if any	Section 363 & 376(2)(n) of the IPC & Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	24.11.2023

¶14

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 the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accusedpetitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

[2024:RJ-JD:23768]

[CRLMB-619/2024]

(2 of 3)

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.

¶19

Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material as made available to the Court. 5. The victim ‘L’ has been examined in the trial as P.W. 1. She alleges to have been taken away by the petitioner on Motorcycle; she was in a passenger bus which stopped at a distant place where she alighted from the bus and then joined the petitioner. Whereafter more than 100 kms. she travelled together with the petitioner on the Motorcycle, several villages, Udaipur City; police officials and public were there but nowhere an alarm for assistance was raised by her. A room was also taken in a Hotel at Udaipur, where she remained three days and this fact further fortifies the claim of the defence regarding her being a consenting party. It is further revealing that silver and gold ornaments of her mother were also taken by her before joining the company of the petitioner. After going through examination-in-chief of the victim and the admissions made by her in the cross examination, this Court feels that there is substance in the submission of the defence to the effect that she was a consenting party. She has been examined in the trial thus there remains no apprehension of hampering or tampering.

¶20

As far as the question of age of the victim is concerned, suffice it would be to say that even in her report (Ex.P/1) she mentioned her age as 19 years. P.W. 3 Hansi Bai is the mother of

[2024:RJ-JD:23768]

[CRLMB-619/2024]

(3 of 3)

the victim; she is an illiterate lady and also admits that her husband was also illiterate, who passed away 13 years ago. She admits that after one year of her marriage, the first boy Kailash born out of their wedlock, the order in which she begotten her children persuading this Court to feel that there is no definite proof regarding the age of the victim being her below the the age of 18 years. However, this is only a tentative opinion for the purpose of justifiable disposal of the bail application and the same shall be taken as a finding of this Court by the trial Court.

¶25

It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner 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.

¶27

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶28

8-Mamta/-

Laxman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman 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

Raja Ram Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics

Nitin Nagar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohit Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan