Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dhanraj @ Dhanna S/O Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 December, 2021
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 743/2021
Dhanraj @ Dhanna S/o Narayan, Aged About 31 Years, Resident
Of Sankheda Police Station Ramgarnj Mandi District Kota (Raj)
(At Present Confined In District Jail Jhalawar (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2. Victim W/o Lokesh Kumar, Resident Of Sarola Police
Station Sarola District Jhalawar
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal
For State : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
08/12/2021
1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 08.04.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Cases, Jhalawar (Raj.), whereby, bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
2. F.I.R. No.93/2020 was registered at Police Station Khanpur, District Jhalawar for offence under Sections 363, 376-D, 343 & 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that prosecutrix is a married lady, having a child. She went with the appellant on her own free will and stayed with him for around twelve days. It is also contended that prosecutrix went with the appellant from one city to another without raising any alarm. It is further contended (Downloaded on 13/12/2021 at 09:26:12 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLAS-743/2021] that appellant has remained in custody for a period of eighteen months. Out of fifteen witnesses, statement of only four witnesses have been recorded, till date. Conclusion of trial will take time.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal.
5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the counsel for the respondent despite service.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Taking note of the fact that prosecutrix is a married lady, having a child who went with the appellant on her own free will from one city to another without raising any alarm and also taking note of the fact that appellant has remained in custody for a period of eighteen months and out of fifteen witnesses, statement of only four witnesses have been recorded, till date and conclusion of trial will take time, hence, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.
8. The order dated 08.04.2021 is quashed and set aside and the appeal is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused- appellant shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ARTI SHARMA /28 (Downloaded on 13/12/2021 at 09:26:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)