Allowed

Jitendra Giri @ Jitu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2024CRLMB/770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail applications filed by two accused persons arrested under POCSO and IPC sections for sexual assault of minor girls. The court doubted the veracity of the First Information Report and the victims statements due to inconsistencies regarding the timing and location of the alleged incident, ruling the prosecution difficult to prove.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Jitendra Giri @ Jitu Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:4139]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

(1) S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 770/2024 Jitendra Giri @ Jitu S/o Ramesh Giri, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Bagali, P.S. Jhab, Dist. Sanchore (Rajasthan) (Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Soni Devi W/o Om Prakash, R/o Ranodar, Chitalwana, Dist. Sanchore.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

Connected With

¶9

(2) S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 771/2024 Suresh Kumar S/o Parsa Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Bagali, P.S. Chitalwana, Dist. Sanchore (Rajasthan.) (Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Soni Devi W/o Om Prakash, R/o Ranodar, Chitalwana, Dist. Sanchore.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. MS Rajpurohit for Mr. Vikram Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Mehar, PP Mr. Hapu Ram Vishnoi for the complainant

¶15

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶16

Order

¶17

25/01/2024

¶18

These applications for bail have been filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with FIR No.164/2023, registered at Police Station Chitalwana, District Sanchore for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 354, 354-A, 354-GH, 506, 376-D(A) and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code,

[2024:RJ-JD:4139]

[CRLMB-770/2024]

(2 of 5)

1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 5(G)(L)/6 and 11(V)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’).

¶23

Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that co-accused (Hanumanaram) whose case is not different than the case of the present applicants has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15956/2023 and therefore, the present applicants are also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Vishnoi, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail applications. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

While allowing the bail application of co-accusedHanumanaram (supra), this Court has made following observation:-

¶26

"2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned First Information Report has been lodged vindictively by the complainant party in order to avert the proceedings against themselves pursuant to the FIR, which the applicant’s father has lodged (being FIR No.163/2023 dated 16.08.2023).

¶27

3. While highlighting that the present FIR (164/2023 dated 16.08.2023) has been lodged at 11:30 pm after the applicant’s father had lodged the FIR, learned counsel argued that the same has been done in order to create undue pressure upon the applicant. It was also argued that had there been any incident

(3 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:4139]

[CRLMB-770/2024]

occurred as alleged in the FIR, nothing prevented the victim-girls from informing their family members and the complainant from lodging an FIR soon after the alleged incident, which according to the complainant’s version itself, occurred 6-8 months back.

¶32

4. It was further argued that the statement of the victim ‘S’ and ‘P’ recorded under Section 164 of the Code are not worthy of credence, inasmuch as, the incident narrated therein is that the present applicant and other two persons namely, Suresh and Jitu had committed sexual assault upon them at the same time on the fields. Learned counsel argued that the story as narrated is difficult to digest, as the alleged place of incident was not an isolated place.

¶33

5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and in response to the argument made by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged vindictively he contended that maybe the scuffle which took place on 15.08.2023 between the rival group was a result of anguish due to sexual assault, which the applicant inflicted upon the daughters of the complainant and sisters of the assailants in the FIR No.163/2023. He submitted that the applicant is being prosecuted for heinous offence of committing sexual assault on minor girls, thus, no indulgence be granted to the applicant.

¶34

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the statement of the victim girls under Section 164 of the Code.

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:4139]

[CRLMB-770/2024]

7. It is to be noted that the scuffle between the parties took place in the morning of 15.08.2023 in the school, in which victim ‘P’ and ‘S’ used to study. There maybe any reason for the scuffle, but in the prima-facie opinion of this Court, the sexual assault upon the minor daughters of the complainant party to the extent of commission of rape was not the cause.

¶39

8. Because, as per the victims’ statement, the sexual assault was committed about 6-8 months ago and that too in a field. In their statements, ‘P’ and ‘S’ have deposed that on the same day and at the same time Suresh had committed rape on ‘S’ while the present applicant Hanumana Ram and other person Jitu had committed rape on ‘P’.

¶40

9. In the opinion of this Court, firstly, the possibility of commission of forceful sexual assault on two minor girls in a field which is not a secluded place is difficult to believe. Even if, such incident had happened, when viewed from the lens of natural human behaviour, the conduct of ‘P’ and ‘S’ in not informing their family members raises a serious doubt about the complainants story. Had there been any forcible sexual assault, the scuffle which had taken place on 15.08.2023 ought to have been happened immediately after such incident.

¶41

10. Apart from the aforesaid, a perusal of the FIR lodged by the applicant’s father being 163/2023 dated 16.08.2023 reveals that a natural statement has been given by the father that there was scuffle between the two rival group, the police authorities have bound down both the parties. Had there been any incident

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:4139]

[CRLMB-770/2024]

or rape as alleged in the subject FIR, the complainant party would have informed the police authorities about the reason for the dispute and then, the offence being a serious and cognizable offence at least the police authorities would have registered the FIR.

¶46

11. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the accusation against the present applicant for the offence alleged is difficult to be proved."

¶47

Following the reasoning given in the case of co-accusedHanumanaram (supra), the present bail applications are also allowed.

¶48

Consequently, the bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant No.1 - Jitendra Giri @ Jitu S/o Ramesh Giri and applicant No.2 - Suresh Kumar S/o Parsa Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.164/2023, registered at Police Station Chitalwana, District Sanchore shall be released on bail on their 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.

¶49

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

¶50

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶51

522-523-akansha/-

Jitendra Giri @ Jitu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Giri @ Jitu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Divya Lohar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Dharmendra Pawar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kusum Vs State of Rajasthan

Harvinder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Naveen Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan