Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Anil Kumar Mishra S/O Shri Daya Shankar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 April, 2019

Author: Inderjeet Singh

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3524/2019

Anil Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Daya Shankar Mishra, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Hig Delux, 43, Arvind Vihar, Bagbugalia, Police Station
Bagsevalia, Bhopal, Mp, At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
                                                                ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. V.R. Bajwa, with
                               Mr. Gaurav Singh
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. S.S. Ola, PP
For Complainant           :    Mr. Anil Kumar Upman

                               Ms. Mamta Shardul, CI, Mahila Thana
                               (South) Jaipur, present in person



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

                                    Order

30/04/2019

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 97/2014, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur for the offences under Sections 376 & 384 of I.P.C., lateron charge-sheet has been filed for offences under sections 376, 384 of IPC and Sec.11 & 12 of the POCSO Act,2012.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter and he is in custody since 28.02.2019. Counsel further submits that the prosecutrix is a married lady, aged about 47 years & is serving as a Government Teacher. Counsel further submits that the main charge-sheet & (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 03:57:22 AM) (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3524/2019] also the supplementary charge-sheet have already been presented in the court and the petitioner is not required for any further investigation. Counsel further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of committing rape on the prosecutrix for four times, first incident relates to the midnight of 7-8 of March,2012 at Bhopal, second incident relates to 17th October, 2012 at Jodhpur, third incident relates to October, 2013 at Delhi, fourth incident relates to November, 2013 at Mumbai. Counsel further submits that the prosecutrix at her own free will travelled alongwith the petitioner to so many places in the State of Rajasthan, State of Maharashtra, State of Madhya Pradesh & Delhi.

3. Counsel further submits that against husband of the prosecutrix, various F.I.Rs have been lodged in the State of M.P., one of such F.I.R. is bearing No.13/2013 registered at Police Station STF, M.P., on 8/11/2013 for offences under sections 420, 409 & 120-B IPC & sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act,1978, in which the prosecutrix is also an accused. Counsel further submits that during the alleged period of rape the prosecutrix was on leave due to sickness and the police recorded statement of one of the treating doctor who stated that he has treated the prosecutrix during this period. Counsel further submits that the supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the police against the petitioner also for the offences under Sections 11 & 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the allegation against the petitioner under the POCSO Act is that daughter of the prosecutrix namely Bhavya took nude pictures of herself and sent the same to the petitioner on his mobile phone and further (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 03:57:22 AM) (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3524/2019] submits that the maximum sentence prescribed for the offences under Sections 11 & 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is three years.

4. Counsel further submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. as the first incident relates to the year 2012 and the F.I.R. has been lodged in the year 2014 after a delay of two years. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a government employee serving in the State of Madhya Pradesh and there is no likelihood of his affecting the trial in the State of Rajasthan.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that for long time the petitioner absconded & could not be arrested and only after intervention made by this Court the arrest warrants issued against the petitioner were executed and the petitioner was arrested on 27.02.2019. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has misused his post & position and demanded money from the prosecutrix to help her in a case lodged against her husband in the State of M.P. bearing FIR No.13/2013 registered as Police Station- STF, M.P. on 08.11.2013 for offence under Sections 420, 409 & 120B of IPC & also under Sections 3,4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner is a Police Officer and has misused his post & position and if the petitioner is granted bail, he may affect the trial and may also abscond again.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. After considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 03:57:22 AM) (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3524/2019] court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as the petitioner is a government employee in the State of M.P., therefore, there is no likelihood of his affecting trial in the State of Rajasthan and the main charge- sheet as also the supplementary charge-sheet has already been presented in the Court and conclusion of the trial may take long time and the petitioner is not required for further investigation.

7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Anil Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Daya Shankar Mishra shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J V.S. Shekhawat/PS/11 (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 03:57:22 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)