Rajasthan High Court
Nadeem Qureshi S/O Liyakat ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2021
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2986/2021
Nadeem Qureshi S/o Liyakat Qureshi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Sirohi, Police Station Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Ola, PP
Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
16/08/2021
1. The bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
in connection with FIR No.184/2020 registered at Police Station
Uniyara, District Tonk for the offence(s) under Sections 366 & 376
IPC and Section 67 & 67-B of I.T. Act, 2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that petitioner and complainant were in
relationship since 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that allegation levelled against the petitioner is that
petitioner had made physical relations on the pretext of marriage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that complainant
lodged the present FIR, after lodging the FIR by brother of
petitioner for offence under Sections 388 and 506 IPC on
19.08.2020 at Police Station Neem Ka Thana. Learned counsel for
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2986/2021]
the petitioner also submits that petitioner has joined the
investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that offence under
Sections 67 and 67-B of I.T. Act is not found proved against the
petitioner. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth
Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Criminal Appeals Nos.1134-
35/2015) decided on 01.09.2015, Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Appeal
No.1165/2019) decided on 21.08.2019, Brij Nath Sah Vs.
State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No.1475/2003) decided on
29.04.2010, Vineet Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No.577/2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.287/2017) decided on 31.03.2017, Sonu @ Subhash
Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal
No.233/2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.11218/2019)
decided on 01.03.2021 and Jude Lobo Vs. State, NCT of
Delhi (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2907/2021)
decided on 29.03.2021.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had
made physical relations by promising the complainant to marry
her and he had also threatened to viral her nude photos. So, the
bail application filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant
as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-2986/2021]
6. Allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner
had made physical relations with complainant several times by
promising to marry her and also threatened her to viral nude
photos on internet.
7. Looking to the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to
grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
8. Hence, the bail application stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /17
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
