Phool Chand Gurjar S/O Kanhaiya ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3565 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
                               10536/2021

Phool Chand Gurjar S/o Kanhaiya Lal, R/o Vill. Budadeet Tehsil
Degode Dist. Kota Raj. (At Present Confined In J.c. At Central Jail
Kota)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaleem Ahamed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

11/08/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.54/2020 was registered at Police Station Borkheda,

Kota for offence under Sections 363 & 366 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that statement

of prosecutrix has been recorded. As per the statement, she did

not raise any alarm when she stayed with the petitioner. She has

also stated that at one time she had sexual relations with consent

and on the next occasion, she did not give consent for sexual

intercourse. It is also contended that date of birth of the

prosecutrix, when she first joined the school was not produced to

establish the age of the prosecutrix instead the date of birth

certificate of the school in which prosecutrix joined in class six,

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-10536/2021]

was produced in which the date of birth is 19.02.2004.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail

application. It is contended that from the record submitted before

the trial Court, it is evident that prosecutrix was aged sixteen

years. As per date of birth certificate in the school in which

prosecutrix joined in class six, the date of birth is 19.02.2004.

Prosecutor was aged sixteen years at the time of the alleged

incident and consent is immaterial. Since in the Court statement

she has levelled allegation of rape against the present petitioner,

hence petitioner is not entitled to bail.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Taking note of the fact that prosecutrix in her statement has

stated that she was raped by the petitioner and since prosecutrix

is a child, consent is immaterial, hence no ground is made out for

entertaining the second bail application.

7. This second bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /24

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)