Dhanraj @ Dhanna S/O Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7364 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 743/2021

Dhanraj @ Dhanna S/o Narayan, Aged About 31 Years, Resident
Of Sankheda Police Station Ramgarnj Mandi District Kota (Raj)
(At Present Confined In District Jail Jhalawar (Raj)
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                  Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2.     Victim W/o Lokesh Kumar, Resident Of Sarola Police
       Station Sarola District Jhalawar
                                                               ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)        :     Mr. Rohit Khandelwal
For State               :     Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                        Judgment / Order

08/12/2021

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated

08.04.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Cases, Jhalawar

(Raj.), whereby, bail application filed by the appellant under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. F.I.R. No.93/2020 was registered at Police Station Khanpur,

District Jhalawar for offence under Sections 363, 376-D, 343 & 34

I.P.C. and Section 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that prosecutrix

is a married lady, having a child. She went with the appellant on

her own free will and stayed with him for around twelve days. It is

also contended that prosecutrix went with the appellant from one

city to another without raising any alarm. It is further contended

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-743/2021]

that appellant has remained in custody for a period of eighteen

months. Out of fifteen witnesses, statement of only four witnesses

have been recorded, till date. Conclusion of trial will take time.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal.

5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the counsel for

the respondent despite service.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Taking note of the fact that prosecutrix is a married lady,

having a child who went with the appellant on her own free will

from one city to another without raising any alarm and also taking

note of the fact that appellant has remained in custody for a

period of eighteen months and out of fifteen witnesses, statement

of only four witnesses have been recorded, till date and conclusion

of trial will take time, hence, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

8. The order dated 08.04.2021 is quashed and set aside and

the appeal is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-

appellant shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only)

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 appear before that Court and any Court to

which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of

hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ARTI SHARMA /28

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)