SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pradeep Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2018

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 11771 / 2017
Pradeep Kumar S/o Shree Kalu Ram, B/c Soni R/o Ward No. 4,
Kedar Chock Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar (At Lodged in Central
Jail Sri Ganganagar.)

The State of Rajasthan

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.

Accused-petitioner has preferred this second bail application

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of FIR No.65/2017,

registered at Police Station Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar,

wherein he along with co-accused Sunil Kumar @ Rinku was

charged for offence under Sections 377/34, 450, 34 IPC and

Section 5(g)(l)/6 of the POCSO Act.

First bail application of petitioner bearing No.6442/2017 was

withdrawn on 21st of August, 2017 with liberty to file fresh after

recording statements of victim in on going trial in Sessions Case

No.74/2017, pending before Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short, ‘learned trial Court’).

Pressing this second bail application, it is submitted by

learned counsel that before the learned trial Court now statements

of victim as well as doctor have been recorded. It is argued by
(2 of 3)

learned counsel that PW2 victim has not attributed any overt-act

to the petitioner much less offence of unnatural sex. Learned

counsel further submits that in fact PW2 has not supported the

prosecution story against petitioner by turning hostile. It is also

argued by learned counsel that during trial statements of Dr.

Hansraj Jyani, who medically examined the victim, have also been

recorded. While referring to the statements of doctor, it is

submitted by learned counsel that as per his statements no visible

sign of sexual assault on the person of victim is found. Learned

counsel further submits that in fact the doctor has completely

ruled out any attempt of unnatural sex with the victim, and

therefore, offence under Section 377 IPC against petitioner is

prima facie under serious cloud. By relying on these substantial

change in the circumstances, learned counsel has urged that the

petitioner may be released on bail as he has already remained in

custody for more than a year and completion of trial is likely to

take considerable time.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail

application of petitioner.

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments

advanced at the Bar and perused the statements of witnesses

recorded during trial.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

while refraining to make any comment on merits, I feel persuaded

to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Pradeep Kumar
(3 of 3)

S/o Shree Kalu Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R.

No.65/2017, Police Station Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar,

may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of

Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of 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.


Twinkle Singh/159

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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