Urmila Dhayal Wife Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
2021 Latest Caselaw 1030 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 85/2018
Urmila Dhayal D/o Shri Lalchand Dhayal, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Simarla Mod, N.h.-52, Village Post- Sargoth, Ringas,
Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.
2.      Aniruddh Jakhad S/o Hari Singh Jakhad, R/o Kanak Vihar,
Kanakpura, Railway Station Ke Pass, Sirsi Mod, Karni Vihar,
Jaipur West.
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Complainant-           :     Mr. Rajeev Surana
Petitioner(s)
For Accused-               :     Mr. Sudhir Jain
Respondent(s)
For State                  :     Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
                           Judgment / Order
01/02/2021


1.     Complainant-petitioner         has      filed     this     bail     cancellation

application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No. 251/2017 was registered at Police Station Jawahar

Circle, Jaipur(East) for offence under Sections 376, 312 of I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the complainant-petitioner

that the accused-respondent has obtained anticipatory bail under

Section 438 Cr.P.C., by stating wrong facts before the Court. It is

argued that when the material facts are mis-stated before the

Court, Court can cancel the bail application.

4. Counsel for the complainant-petitioner in this regard has

(2 of 3) [CRLBC-85/2018]

placed reliance on "State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad

(2017) 2 SCC 178; Jugnu Mishra Vs. State of Rajasthan

(S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.

51/2016); Madan Mohan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and

Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5024/2014); Madan

Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan (2018) 12 SCC 30; Kanwar

Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 180". It

is contended that accused-respondent and complainant-petitioner

were engaged. The accused-respondent committed rape with

complainant-petitioner and later on refused to marry her. Police

submitted negative final report and on that basis, bail application

was granted. Later on, a protest petition was filed and charge-

sheet has been filed against the accused-respondent and charges

were also been framed. It is also contended that an FIR under

Sections 420 & 406 of IPC was also filed against the accused-

respondent.

5. Counsel for the accused-respondent has opposed the bail

cancellation application. It is contended that the Court below has

passed a reasoned and detailed order and no fact whatsoever, was

concealed. From the order itself, it is revealed that parties were

engaged and thereafter, some dispute took place between the

parties and the marriage could not be solemnized. In this regard,

It is also contended that there was an inordinate delay in lodging

of FIR. Accused-respondent is a government employee. Counsel

has placed reliance on "Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani Vs. The

State of Maharashtra 2017 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 715; Anup

K. Paul Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another 2015 (3)Cri. L.R.

(3 of 3) [CRLBC-85/2018]

(Raj.) 1491; Ankit Sharma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and

Another 2014 (17) R.C.R. (Criminal) 564; Jetha Bhaya

Odedara Vs. Ganga Maldebhai Odedara and Another

2012 AIR (SC) 775; Savitri Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Anr. 2009(9) JT 460" No ground whatsoever, is

made out for canceling the bail, granted to the accused-

respondent.

6. I have considered the contentions and have carefully perused

the impugned order.

7. Court below while granting bail has in detail discussed the

sequence of events and has specifically mentioned that accused-

respondent refused to marry the complainant-petitioner and the

same was conveyed to her on 30.11.2016 and the final

communication thereof, was given on 21.01.2017. FIR was lodged

after a delay of three months. It is also taken note of the fact that

the negative final report is submitted by the police in changed

circumstance and now charge-sheet has been filed and charges

have also been framed. However, taking note of the fact that

accused-respondent is a Government employee and there was a

delay in lodging of FIR, the Court has passed a reasoned order. No

fact whatsoever was concealed before the Court below at the time

when the complainant-petitioner was granted bail. The judgments

cited by the counsel for the complainant-petitioner have no

application to the present case.

8. In view of the above, this bail cancellation application is

hereby, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)