HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17137/2022
Saamandeep Singh @ Samandeep Singh Son Of Shri Satbir
Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of House No. 450, Khalsa
Niwas, Ramchandrapura, Police Station Gumanpura, Kota At
Present Lodged In The Central Jail Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Gupt Chaupra, P.P.
Mr. Guru Charan Singh Gill with
Ms. Soni Bajaj
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
05/01/2023
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.519/2022 registered at Police Station Gumanpura District Kota City for the offence(s) under Section(s) 376, 354, 420, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120-B & 469 IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (for brevity "the Act of 2008") and later on for the offences under Sections 376(2)(N), 354, 420, 406 & 384 IPC & Section 66 of the Act of 2008.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case wherein, the FIR has been lodged by a lady of 45 years of age with inordinate delay of about ten years. Inviting attention of this Court towards the photographs (Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 09:19:59 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLMB-17137/2022] appended with the memo of the bail application, the agreement executed in between the parties notarized on 05.10.2020 which reflects that they married each other, the agreement dated 06.07.2022 to show that the divorce took place in between them, learned counsel submitted that no offence as alleged is made out. Learned counsel submitted that even the allegations of blackmailing, constituting offence(s) under the provisions of the Act of 2008 and forgery, have been found to be false by the Investigating Agency after thorough investigation wherein, the allegations are found to be established prima-facie under Sections 376 (2)(N), 385 & 506 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 05.11.2022, investigation as against him is complete, trial of the case will take time, he has no criminal antecedents and prayed for his release on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer.
Learned counsel for the complainant, drawing attention of this Court towards the copies of various agreements placed by him on record, would submit that she has taken huge loan on various occasions on asking of the petitioner and she was compelled to sell her residential house also by the petitioner in order to grab the sale consideration. Shri Gill submitted that the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of bail due to defective investigation. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of State of U.P. versus Hari Mohan & Ors.: AIR 2001 Supreme Court
142. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
Heard. Considered.
(Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 09:19:59 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-17137/2022] As per the allegations in the FIR lodged on 27.09.2022, the complainant, a widow lady, was being subjected to rape by the petitioner soon after death of her husband on 25.06.2011. From the material available in the case diary and the documents placed on record along with the memo of bail application, it is apparent that the parties have entered into an agreement notarized on 05.10.2020 stating therein that they have solemnized marriage and divorce in between them took place on 06.07.2022. The allegations of the complainant that she was forcibly compelled to sign these agreements, does not appear to be convincing at this stage in view of the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC of Shri Pradeep Singh Hada, the Notary Public who has attested the agreement dated 05.10.2020, Shri Atul Agarwal, the Notary Public who has attested the agreement dated 06.07.2022 and Shri Praveen Kumar Meena & Ms. Diksha Meena, the attesting witnesses to the agreements. A perusal of the case diary does not reflect, at least, prima-facie that the Investigation was tainted. The petitioner is in custody since 05.11.2022, investigation as against him is complete, trial of the case will take time, he has no criminal antecedents and in view thereof; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to extend the petitioner benefit of bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Saamandeep Singh @ Samandeep Singh Son Of Shri Satbir Singh shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) (Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 09:19:59 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMB-17137/2022] 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 comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/91 (Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 09:19:59 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)