HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 85/2018
Urmila Dhayal D/o Shri Lalchand Dhayal, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Simarla Mod, N.h.-52, Village Post- Sargoth, Ringas,
Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.
2. Aniruddh Jakhad S/o Hari Singh Jakhad, R/o Kanak Vihar,
Kanakpura, Railway Station Ke Pass, Sirsi Mod, Karni Vihar,
Jaipur West.
----Respondent
For Complainant- : Mr. Rajeev Surana
Petitioner(s)
For Accused- : Mr. Sudhir Jain
Respondent(s)
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
01/02/2021
1. Complainant-petitioner has filed this bail cancellation
application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No. 251/2017 was registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur(East) for offence under Sections 376, 312 of I.P.C.
3. It is contended by counsel for the complainant-petitioner that the accused-respondent has obtained anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., by stating wrong facts before the Court. It is argued that when the material facts are mis-stated before the Court, Court can cancel the bail application.
4. Counsel for the complainant-petitioner in this regard has (Downloaded on 05/02/2021 at 10:11:21 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLBC-85/2018] placed reliance on "State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad (2017) 2 SCC 178; Jugnu Mishra Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 51/2016); Madan Mohan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5024/2014); Madan Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan (2018) 12 SCC 30; Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 180". It is contended that accused-respondent and complainant-petitioner were engaged. The accused-respondent committed rape with complainant-petitioner and later on refused to marry her. Police submitted negative final report and on that basis, bail application was granted. Later on, a protest petition was filed and charge- sheet has been filed against the accused-respondent and charges were also been framed. It is also contended that an FIR under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC was also filed against the accused- respondent.
5. Counsel for the accused-respondent has opposed the bail cancellation application. It is contended that the Court below has passed a reasoned and detailed order and no fact whatsoever, was concealed. From the order itself, it is revealed that parties were engaged and thereafter, some dispute took place between the parties and the marriage could not be solemnized. In this regard, It is also contended that there was an inordinate delay in lodging of FIR. Accused-respondent is a government employee. Counsel has placed reliance on "Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2017 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 715; Anup K. Paul Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another 2015 (3)Cri. L.R. (Downloaded on 05/02/2021 at 10:11:21 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLBC-85/2018] (Raj.) 1491; Ankit Sharma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another 2014 (17) R.C.R. (Criminal) 564; Jetha Bhaya Odedara Vs. Ganga Maldebhai Odedara and Another 2012 AIR (SC) 775; Savitri Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2009(9) JT 460" No ground whatsoever, is made out for canceling the bail, granted to the accused- respondent.
6. I have considered the contentions and have carefully perused the impugned order.
7. Court below while granting bail has in detail discussed the sequence of events and has specifically mentioned that accused- respondent refused to marry the complainant-petitioner and the same was conveyed to her on 30.11.2016 and the final communication thereof, was given on 21.01.2017. FIR was lodged after a delay of three months. It is also taken note of the fact that the negative final report is submitted by the police in changed circumstance and now charge-sheet has been filed and charges have also been framed. However, taking note of the fact that accused-respondent is a Government employee and there was a delay in lodging of FIR, the Court has passed a reasoned order. No fact whatsoever was concealed before the Court below at the time when the complainant-petitioner was granted bail. The judgments cited by the counsel for the complainant-petitioner have no application to the present case.
8. In view of the above, this bail cancellation application is hereby, dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J NIKHIL KR. YADAV /1 (Downloaded on 05/02/2021 at 10:11:21 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)