Gajendra Singh Late Shri Dan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3496 Raj/2

         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

(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

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)