Mukesh Sharmas/O Shri Rajaram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1033 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 35/2020

1.       Mukesh Sharma S/o Shri Rajaram, Aged About 48 Years,
         R/o Village Sarani Khera, Ps Sadar Dholpur, Distt.
         Dholpur, Raj.
2.       Sajna Sharma S/o Shri Mukesh Sharma, Aged About 14
         Years, R/o Village Sarani Khera, Ps Sadar Dholpur, Distt.
         Dholpur, Raj.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Veekesh S/o Munna Lal, R/o Village Sarani Khera, Ps
         Sadar Dholpur, Distt. Dholpur, Raj.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Complainant- : Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi present in Petitioner(s) the Court For Accused- : Mr. Sumit Kumar Jain present in the Respondent(s) Court 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 application under

Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.169/2018 was registered at Police Station Mahila

Thana, District Dholpur for offence under Sections 376-D, 120-B

I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act

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

that the bail application was allowed by the Court below on

21.05.2020, on the ground that the matter is at final stage,

(2 of 3) [CRLBC-35/2020]

accused-respondent is in custody from 19.10.2018 and that

conclusion of trial will take time, as there was Lock-Down. It is

also contended that the Court below did not take into account the

fact that the second bail application of the accused was dismissed

by the High Court on 14.10.2019, after considering the statement

of the victim, aged twelve years. It is further contended that in

similar type of cases, bail was granted by the same Presiding

Officer, for which the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court has

written to the Chief Justice to take appropriate action against the

Officer.

4. Counsel for the accused-respondent contends that the

matter is at final stage since pretty long time. Time was sought by

the complainant-petitioner and the matter is not finally decided on

that account.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. In the impugned order of the Court below, there is not a

single line that adjournment was taken by the prosecution side or

the complainant-petitioner. Court below has not taken note of the

fact that the second bail application was dismissed on 14.10.2019,

and within a span of six months, Trial Court has granted bail to the

accused-respondent, who is an accused of committing the offence

with a twelve year old child.

7. In view of the above, grant of bail by the Court below

without taking into account the rejection of second bail application

by the High Court, cannot be sustained and the bail cancellation

application deserves to be allowed.

(3 of 3) [CRLBC-35/2020]

8. This Bail Cancellation Application is, accordingly, allowed.

9. Trial Court is directed to take the accused-respondent in

custody forthwith and conclude the trial within a period of three

months without giving any further adjournments to either side.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /7

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)