Allowed

Akhilesh Dhama S/O Pushpendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2024CRLMB/887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the accused petitioner in a rape case, noting a 9-month delay in FIR registration and the prosecutrix's statement regarding a prior love affair, ordering him to furnish a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of the accused-petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Akhilesh Dhama S/O Pushpendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6707]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 887/2024

¶4

Akhilesh Dhama S/o Pushpendra Singh, R/o Village Post Khekra, District Bagpat (U.p.). (Petitioner Is In Custody At Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Chandra Shekhar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. C. G. Chopra, PP
	Ms. Anita Aggarwal Mr. Laxmi Kant

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

08/02/2024

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Akhilesh Dhama. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.353/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar, West, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 376(2)(N) and 384 of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by 09 months. He submits that the first incident of rape was mentioned as 10.01.2023 and thereafter on 30.05.2023 and the FIR was lodged on 29.09.2023. It is also alleged in the FIR that prosecutrix became pregnant due to the act of the petitioner, there is no such evidence collected during the course of investigation. In the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

[2024:RJ-JP:6707]

[CRLMB-887/2024]

(2 of 2)

prosecutrix herself has stated that she was having love affair with the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2023 and charge-sheet has already been produced before the trial Court and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail application.

¶20

Considering the fact that prosecutrix herself in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that she was having love affair with the accused-petitioner and report is delayed by almost 09 months, without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Akhilesh Dhama S/o Pushpendra Singh in connection with FIR No.353/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar, West, Jaipur 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.

¶22

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶23

123-Rahul Joshi

Akhilesh Dhama S/O Pushpendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Dhama S/O Pushpendra Singh 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

Kaliya Vs State

Ramjan Ali S/O Kamru Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pukhraj S/O Bhojaram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Asloop S/O Rehmat Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman Kumawat S/O Chhitarmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gunesh Meena S/O Hetram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan