HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5126/2021
Gajendra Singh Late Shri Dan Singh, R/o Sabaura Ps Kumher
Dist. Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mr. J. K. Moolchandani, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Pareek, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP Mr. Narendra Prasad Meena, Adv.
Mr. Anurodh Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Adv.
through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order Judgment Reserved on : 05/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06/08/2021 The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.485/2014 registered at Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Sections 292, 376, 503 IPC and Section 4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Probation) Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecutrix has lodged the present FIR in the year 2014 in which she has stated the incident of 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that during investigation, prosecutrix has submitted an application before the concerned S.H.O. that she did not want any (Downloaded on 10/08/2021 at 10:23:48 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5126/2021] proceedings against the petitioner and she had also denied for medical examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after investigation, final negative report was submitted before the concerned court. After the lapse of 3 years, complainant had filed the protest petition because petitioner's father has lodged an FIR against the complainant as well as her relatives in which charge-sheet has been filed against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after investigation, Investigating Officer has not found any offence against the petitioner. Trial court wrongly summoned the petitioner from non-bailable warrants. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner had filed this petition by hiding the facts. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the revisional court. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that petitioner had filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to convert the non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants in which coordinate bench of this court had ordered on 19.02.2021 and directed the petitioner to surrender within a month before the trial court but petitioner had not surrendered himself before the trial court. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that petitioner had challenged the cognizance order in this court by way of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.544/2021 in which coordinate bench of this court dismissed the criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged the said order by way of S.L.P. before (Downloaded on 10/08/2021 at 10:23:48 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5126/2021] the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that at that time, petitioner had hidden the facts that the anticipatory bail petition was pending before this court. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that the said S.L.P. was withdrawn with liberty that the petitioner shall file the anticipatory bail application before the concerned court within a period of three weeks but petitioner had not filed the said application before the concerned court because his anticipatory bail application was pending in this court. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that the petitioner is playing game of hide and seek, So, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner be rejected.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned order. It is revealed from record that petitioner had concealed before the Apex Court that the bail application was pending in this court. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Hence, the bail application stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /28 (Downloaded on 10/08/2021 at 10:23:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)