Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagpreet Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 May, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023/RJJD/017536]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4104/2023
Jagpreet Singh S/o Ekbal Singh, Aged About 21 Years, B/c Majbi
Sikh, R/o Ward No. 03, Chak 4 Sjm, 4 Kpd, Police Station Rawla,
District Sri Ganganagar.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Barkat Khan S/o Rajhe Khan, Aged About 44 Years, B/c
Musalman, R/o Shekhda, 4 Sjm, Police Station Rawla,
District Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Bidan Halu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 26/05/2023 An FIR No.216/2020 was lodged by the complainant- Barkat Kha at PS Rawla, District Sriganganagar for offences under Section 450, 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 376(3), 376D of IPC and 3/4(2), 5(L)/6, 5(G)/6 of POCSO stating inter alia that on 29.10.2020, his minor daughter Mst. 'N', aged about 15 years is missing from house. Complainant in the FIR suspected that she has been kidnapped by Pawan Kumar, Jagpreet Singh (petitioner), Billu Kha etc. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet No.01 dated 19.02.2021 before POCSO Court No.1, Sriganganagar against co-accused Pawan Kumar. Charge sheet was not filed against co-accused Paniya Kha and present petitioner as (Downloaded on 26/05/2023 at 10:44:06 PM) [2023/RJJD/017536] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4104/2023] investigating agency concluded that their involvement was not found in commission of the alleged crime.
The proseuctrix Mst. 'N' in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 05.11.2022 alleged that she was forcibly taken away in the intervening night of 29.10.2020 at about 1-2 am by co- accused Paniya @ Mohammad Ali under the threat of knife. Thereafter, she was taken to tibbas situated away from her house where she was subjected to repeated sexual assaults- rape by the co-accused persons and the petitioner. As per prosecutrix, she was forced to consume sedative tablets until she was traced by her brother and other family members.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that investigating agency after making thorough investigation in the matter did not name petitioner as an accused in the petitioner rather in the charge sheet, it is stated that the petitioner fully co-operated with the investigating agency when they were tracing the prosecutrix. Learned counsel submitted that it was only when proseuctrix Mst. 'N' (P.W.1) in her statements dated 03.11.2022 recorded before competent criminal court has levelled allegations against him of committing sexual assault- rape upon her, co-accused Pawan moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cognizance against the petitioner has been taken and he has been implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that investigating agency while submitting charge sheet did not name the petitioner as an accused in the matter and he has implicated only after an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by co- (Downloaded on 26/05/2023 at 10:44:06 PM) [2023/RJJD/017536] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4104/2023] accused before competent criminal court. Learned counsel submitted that challan has already been filed, the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case is likely to take time, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that it is not for the first time when prosecutrix has levelled allegations of she being sexually assaulted- raped by the present petitioner and co-accused persons before competent criminal court in her court statement dated 09.11.2022. As a matter of fact, the prosecutrix in her statements made under Section 161, Cr.P.C dated 05.11.2020 also levelled exactly similar accusations against present petitioner and co- accused persons. There is consistency in the statements of the prosecutrix.
Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers trial court to proceed against a person against whom in the course of any inquiry into or, trial of an offence, it appears that he/she has committed any offence. The trial court thus, in view of the statements of the prosecutrix Mst. 'N' recorded before it on 03.11.2022, rightly exercised powers conferred upon it by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.C. on an application filed by co-accused.
This Court on the face of the statements of prosecutrix made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before competent criminal court dated 03.11.2022 so also looking to the gravity of allegations finds (Downloaded on 26/05/2023 at 10:44:06 PM) [2023/RJJD/017536] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4104/2023] that prima facie a case is made out against the petitioner and he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the instant application for bail is dismissed. It is made clear that observations made above are limited to consideration of application for bail filed by the petitioner. The observations shall not come in the way of final adjudication before the trial Court. The trial Court is to consider the matter pending before it, without being influences by any of the observations made, strictly on the basis of evidence brought before it.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/-
(Downloaded on 26/05/2023 at 10:44:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)