SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shivraj S/O Banshiram B/C Sain vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 January, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 115/2020

Shivraj S/o Banshiram B/c Sain, R/o Private Bus Stand, Jabreshwar
Balaji Mandir Bhawanigarh, Deedwana, Police Station Deedwana
District Nagaur (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Sambharlake)
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Chandel for
Mr. Dinesh Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, P.P.

For Complainant : Mr. Rajesh Sharma for
Ms. Chetana Sharma

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order

27/01/2020

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.114/2019 registered at Police Station Sambharlake, District Jaipur

for the offence(s) under Section(s) 498-A, 406, 323, 354-A, 377, 494

of I.P.C.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR

is delayed and the Investigating Agency has erroneously filed charge-

sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. ignoring the statement of constable

Mahendra Singh. He contended that the petitioner has falsely been

implicated in the case and the allegations are unnatural on their face.

He submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2019. He,

therefore, prayed for release of the petitioner on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the counsel for the

complainant has opposed the bail application and submits that there

are serious allegations leading to offence under Section 354A and 377

(Downloaded on 01/02/2020 at 08:42:37 PM)
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-115/2020]

IPC besides other offences. He further submits that dowry articles are

yet to be recovered and the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of

bail.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

So far as the allegation under Section 377 IPC is concerned, it is

subject matter of trial as to whether the same would subsist in view of

amended definition of rape under Section 375 IPC. However, taking

into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioner, length of the custody and nature of allegation; but, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it

just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that

accused-petitioner Shivraj S/o Banshiram shall be released on bail

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR

registered at concerned Police Station, provided he furnishes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)

together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the

stipulation that he shall comply with all the conditions laid down under

Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/58

(Downloaded on 01/02/2020 at 08:42:37 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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