SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amit Kumar And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 17 April, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 4374/2018

1. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Rajveer B/c Jat, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Hanumanpura, Police Station Sadar
Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present In Distt.
Jail, Jhunjhunu)
2. Sachin S/o Shri Jagmal B/c Jat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Village Hanumanpura, Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu,
Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present In Distt. Jail,
Jhunjhunu)
—-Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. R. Singh Rathore PP.
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Devanshu Sharma for Mr. Arun
Singh Shekhawat

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

17/04/2018

1. Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No 97/2018 was registered at Police Station

Gudhagaurji, Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 365, 323 and

354 of I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that initially

petitioners were arrested under Section 107, 116 Cr.P.C.,

subsequently, FIR was filed under Section 365 IPC, thereafter,

Section 354 IPC was added and ultimately in the statement
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-4374/2018]

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, after seven days of the

incident, allegation of rape was made.

4. It is contended that prosecutrix is major and went with the

petitioner on her own free will. Teachers of the school followed the

vehicle. An altercation took place between the villagers and the

petitioners which followed arrest of petitioners.

5. It is also contended that allegation of rape has been levelled

after a belated stage and it is not possible that rape would be

committed when the vehicle was followed by teachers of the

school.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the bail application.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

petitioners, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

9. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed

that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided they

furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

thousand) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees twenty five thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial

Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court

and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all

subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

Seema/21

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation