Shivraj @ Foru S/O Shri Sukhdev vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3860 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No.
                                 7292/2021

Shivraj @ Foru S/o Shri Sukhdev, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Motalav Police Station Sawar District Ajmer (Raj.) (At Present In
Central Jail Ajmer)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Karanpal Singh
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                           Judgment / Order

18/08/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this third bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.114/2019 was registered at Police Station Sawar,

District Ajmer (Raj.) for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 (D),

376(2)(N) I.P.C. and Sections 5(D)/6, 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act.

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

statement of prosecutrix has been recorded. Prosecutrix in her

statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has levelled

allegations with regard to rape. However, in the statement before

the Court, she has only stated with regard to kidnapping and there

were no allegations with regard to rape. It is also contended that

petitioner was arrested and has remained in custody since

23.08.2019- 30.08.2019. A false case has been registered against

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-7292/2021]

him.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the third bail

application. It is contended that counsel for the petitioner has

stated wrongs facts before the Court. Prosecutrix in her Court

statement has specifically levelled allegation with regard to rape

against the present petitioner.

5. I have considered the contentions and have perused the

contention of the counsel for the petitioner. He has stated wrong

facts before the Court with regard to statement of the prosecutrix

recorded before the Court. The counsel for the petitioner stated

that in the Court statement, prosecutrix has only levelled

allegation with regard to kidnapping and not rape, whereas she

has specifically levelled allegation with regard to rape against the

present petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner however, has stated

that he did not intend to state the wrong facts.

6. As many as 100 cases are listed before the Court and the

Court rely upon the statements of Bar. The practice of counsel for

the petitioner is deprecated and instead of sending the matter to

the Bar Council, Court gives a warning to remain careful in future

while addressing the Court.

7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

State, I am not inclined to entertain the third bail application.

8. This third bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

Nikhil Kr. Yadav / 24

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)