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 14, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Maya Devi D/O Birdaram W/O Shri Vinod vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 January, 2021

Author: Pankaj Bhandari

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1637/2020

Smt Maya Devi D/o Birdaram W/o Shri Vinod, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Grarm Devkheda Police Station Jawaja, Distt. Ajmer.
(At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                     Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.        Lali Devi W/o Shri Rajuram, R/o Devkhera, Jawaja, Ajmer
          Raj.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal present in the Court For Complainant(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar through VC For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 21/01/2021

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 28.10.2020 passed by Special Judge POCOS Cases, No.1, Ajmer District Ajmer (Raj.), whereby, bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. F.I.R. No.328/2020 was registered at Police Station Jawaja District Ajmer for offence under Sections 323, 341, 342, 363, 376, 376-D, 376(2)(n), 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4, 5l, 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that there is an inordinate delay of two years in lodging of the F.I.R. Appellant is a female.

(Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:57:43 PM)

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-1637/2020]

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeal.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

7. The order dated 28.10.2020 is quashed and set aside and the appeal is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused- appellant shall be released on bail provided she 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 she 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 /85 (Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:57:43 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)