Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shaukin Mohammed vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 September, 2022
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9064/2022
Shaukin Mohammed S/o Sh. Kamruddin, Aged About 40 Years,
B/c Mohammedan R/o Nangli Salarysingh Ps Khetri Dist.
Jhunjhunu Raj. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kailash Choudhary S/o Sh. Meethalal, R/o Choudhary
Mohalla Kanor Dist. Udaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, P.P.
Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 07/09/2022 The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 81/2022 of Police Station Mount Abu, District Sirohi for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 354-A and 376/511 IPC and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence relates to 03.03.2022 and the FIR has been lodged on 23.06.2022 i.e. after about three months and 20 days. It is further submitted that challan of the case has already been presented and no useful purpose will be served keeping the petitioner behind the bars, (Downloaded on 08/09/2022 at 09:00:28 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-9064/2022] therefore, in these circumstances, bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that prosecutrix is merely 14 years of age and specific averment of sexual harassment has been levelled against the present petitioner which is corroborated from her statement as well as other students, therefore, the bail application may be dismissed.
Heard and considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
From the perusal of the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it is evident that the she has categorically stated that she was a student of Class X and resided in the hostel where the Hostel warden and her sister resided and her sister's husband i.e. present petitioner came to the hostel room of prosecutrix and made physical contact and sexual advances with the prosecutrix. The story is duly corroborated by the statement of friend of proseuctrix. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the statement of prosecutrix. The trial court is directed to record the statement of prosecutrix as early as possible.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 21-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 08/09/2022 at 09:00:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)