Allowed

Himmat @ Hemant v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Jan 2024CRLMB/865/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an applicant arrested for alleged abduction and ransom. The Court noted inconsistencies in the victim's statements and lack of evidence regarding ransom demands, finding the applicant entitled to bail on a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing personal bond of ₹50,000/- and two sureties of ₹25,000/- each.

Himmat @ Hemant Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:4457]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 865/2024 Himmat @ Hemant S/o Prakash Chandra, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Rud, At Present Marmi, Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh.

¶4

(Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Mehta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶11

29/01/2024

¶12

The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been filed by the applicant, who is in custody in connection with the FIR No.281/2023 registered at Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 342, 363, 365, 356 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that an absolutely unsustainable charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution against the applicant alleging commission of offence of abduction.

¶14

Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the statement of the victim under Section 161 of the Code, which was recorded on 12.12.2023 and highlighted that in such statement, the girl had clearly denied the factum of abduction and thereafter, she has taken a somersault and has given completely contradictory statement under Section 164 of the Code recorded on 16.12.2023 and has alleged that the applicant had abducted her and kept in his custody for ransom of 50,000/-.₹

[2024:RJ-JD:4457]

[CRLMB-865/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel submitted that during the period interregnum i.e. recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code (12.12.2023) and under Section 164 of the Code (16.12.2023) the girl has remained with her family and contended that the subject statement under Section 164 of the Code was given under undue pressure and influence of the family.

¶19

Learned counsel argued that the allegation of abduction for ransom of 50,000/- is absolutely unsustainable, inasmuch as,₹ there is no evidence showing any attempt made by the applicant to contact the family/parents of the girl for demand of ransom. He added that even the mobile phone of the complainant was with the girl as stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Code and argued that demand of ransom is totally ruled out.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application while arguing that in event of contradiction in statements or difference in the statements given under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code, more weightage should be given to the Statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

It is to be noted that the girl was found/recovered by the Police on 12.12.2023 and her stand immediately thereafter was that nobody had abducted her. For the reasons best known to her, she has changed her version while giving her statement under Section 164 of the Code on 16.12.2023.

¶23

The statement of the girl given under Section 164 of the Code does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, had the applicant abducted the girl for ransom, he would have made an attempt to

[2024:RJ-JD:4457]

[CRLMB-865/2024]

(3 of 3)

contact girl’s/prosecutrix’s parents by way of mobile phone or by other means for demand of ransom.

¶28

There is no evidence on record showing that the applicant has ever tried to contact the parents of the girl during the period when the prosecutrix/girl purportedly remained with the present applicant between 10.12.2023 to 12.12.2023.

¶29

For the reasons forgoing, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶30

Consequently, the present bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant – Himmat @ Hemant S/o Prakash Chandra arrested in connection with the FIR No.281/2023 registered at Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh shall be released on bail; provided that he executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- and two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

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.

¶32

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶33

67-Arvind/-

Himmat @ Hemant v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himmat @ Hemant 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

Harvinder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Giri @ Jitu Vs State of Rajasthan

Naveen Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Raj Kumar Saini Vs State and Anr.

Vishnu Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan