Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hem Singh vs State on 10 February, 2021
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 3) [CRLMB-224/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 224/2021
Hem Singh S/o Udai Singh Rawat, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o.Mamadeo Gawar, P.s. Kelwera, District Rajsamand.
(Presently Lodged At District Jail, Rajsamand).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 10/02/2021 The present 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.114/2020, Police Station Kelwara, District Rajsamand, for the offences under Section 363, 366-(KA), 342, 376 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the first bail application of the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 03/09/2020, the charge sheet has been filed. He further submits that even a bare perusal of the FIR will go to show that the offences alleged are absolutely improbable. He further submits that except the bald allegations made in the statements of the victim Mst. 'L' recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC, (Downloaded on 11/02/2021 at 09:09:45 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-224/2021] there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the offences alleged and the allegations levelled are of very usual nature. He further submits that even as per the medical report, only abrasion marks are shown which cannot be a conclusive proof of rape having been committed on the body of Mst.'L'. He further submits that the place where the rape was committed, it was not possible that no bruises or injuries could have come on the body of victim. He further submits that the present case has been filed only to falsely implicate the present petitioner in this case.
Per contra, learned public prosecutor submits that a bare perusal of the statements of the victim 'L' recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. goes to show that the allegations against the present petitioner are completely made out. He submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C at this stage.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.
It is a fact that Mst.'L' is 17 years of age and in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she categorically states that the present petitioner committed rape. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statements of Mst.'L' recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.c. at this stage.
So far as the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the improbability of the incident is concerned and no injuries having been suffered, the same will be appreciated at the time of trial. Presently, as per the statements of Mst.'L' (Downloaded on 11/02/2021 at 09:09:45 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-224/2021] recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, the allegations against the present petitioner are sufficient.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant 2 nd bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the 2nd bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 109-SanjayS/-
(Downloaded on 11/02/2021 at 09:09:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)