Partly allowed

Sahid S/O Azad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2024CRLMB/679/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Act deals with the discharge of a bail application by the High Court of Rajasthan in which the petitioner, being accused of serious crimes including POCSO offences and declared an absconder, was required to seek regular bail instead of anticipatory bail, given that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

What did the court decide?

Bail application discharged; petitioner directed to appear on 31.01.2024 and submit bail bonds to the trial court for acceptance.

Sahid S/O Azad Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:3623]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 679/2024

¶4

Sahid S/o Azad, R/o Kanchanner, Police Station Jurhera, District Deeg (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

Kayam S/o Haneef, R/o Kanchanner, Police Station Jurhera, District Deeg (Raj.).

¶9

Victim, R/o

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammad Aslam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babulal Nasuna, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶13

Order

¶14

22/01/2024

¶15

The instant pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.117/2021 registered at PS Jurhera, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376-D of IPC and Sections 5G/6 & 16/17 of POCSO Act.

¶16

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that co-accused Shaukeen was tried by the learned trial court and he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 17.10.2023. As per the findings of learned trial court, in the case of co-accused, prosecutrix was not found minor. It is further submitted that petitioner is ready to face the trial. It is further

[2024:RJ-JP:3623]

[CRLMB-679/2024]

(2 of 3)

submitted that co-accused Shaukeen was on bail during trial. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this matter. It is thus, prayed that instant anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC may kindly be allowed.

¶21

Under the instructions of Investigating Officer, learned Public Prosecutor submits that instant bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the petitioner in the court below and the petitioner has been declared absconder.

¶22

Section 82 of Cr.P.C. provides for issuance of proclamation against absconding persons. It says that if any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant of arrest has been issued by it, has absconded or concealed himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time, not less than 30 days, from the date of publishing such proclamation.

¶23

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the reason to believe must be supported by material on record. The material on record would be in the nature of service of summons on the petitioner or execution of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Only by issuance of summons and warrants, it cannot be assumed that the same were served on the petitioner. 6. It is also evident from the record that requirement of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have not been fulfilled before declaring the petitioner absconder.

[CRLMB-679/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:3623]

(3 of 3)

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially the fact that co-accused was on bail and later on he was acquitted; charge-sheet has been filed, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is not required. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to dispose of this bail application with the following directions:-

¶28

(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Court concerned on or before 31.01.2024 and submit his bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

¶29

(ii) Upon furnishing bail bonds, the learned trial Court shall accept the same.

¶30

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶31

CHARU SONI /26

Sahid S/O Azad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahid S/O Azad 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

Annu S/O Haricharan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramprasad @ Rp S/O Late Lahariram Jogi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Anar Singh S/O Ramesh Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar S/O Shri Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Chand Bhawaria S/O Laxman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sagarmal Dhakad S/O Nandram @ Nandlal Dhakad Vs State of Rajasthan