Allowed

Rahul v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2024CRLMB/8763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner in an FIR involving offenses under Sections 354, 376(2)(n), 376(D), and 392 IPC. The court relied on the completed investigation, the delay in filing the complaint without explanation, and the absence of injuries on the prosecutrix, noting no risk of flight or witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28519]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 8763/2024

¶4

Rahul S/o Shri Motilal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Khajuri, P.s. Bichhiwara, Dist. Dungarpur,raj. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Dungarpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Puna Ram Sen
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR ORDER

¶11

12/07/2024

¶12

This second application for bail under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.456/2023 registered at Police Station Bachhiwada, District Dungarpur, for offences under Sections 341, 354, 376(2)(n), 376(D) and 392 IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that for the alleged incident which happened on 12.10.2023, the complainant submitted a written complaint only on 18.11.2023, without explaining the delay caused for the same. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, it was urged that as per the prosecution, the petitioner had attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix and had also forcibly taken her gold chain. Learned counsel submitted that had the petitioner attempted to commit forcible sexual assault-Rape upon the

¶14

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-8763/2024]

¶15

[2024:RJ-JD:28519]

¶16

prosecutrix, she must have received some injuries but the medical examination report dated 28.11.2023 annexed by the investigating agency alongwith the challan papers, clearly indicates that no internal or external injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix.

¶17

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, who is aged about 22 years, is in judicial custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶18

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶20

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner, who is aged about 22 years, is in judicial custody; investigation against him has already been completed; no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecutrix for approaching the police after a delay of about one month; and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the prosecutrix or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Rahul S/o Shri Motilal shall be enlarged on bail in connection

[2024:RJ-JD:28519]

[CRLMB-8763/2024]

(3 of 3)

with FIR No.456/2023 registered at Police Station Bachhiwada, District Dungarpur, 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 so.

¶26

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

¶27

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶28

277-TarunGoyal/-

Rahul v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Alka Punia Vs Vikas Punia

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lrs of Madanlal and Ors.

Gopal Kha Vs State of Rajasthan

The New Indian Insurance Company Limited Vs Vidhya

Lal Chand Kaswan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahipal Vs State of Rajasthan