Manoj Kumar vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 2849 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14245/2019

Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o By Caste Meghwal, R/o Maganpura Police Station Khatu Shayam Ji, District Sikar Rajasthan.(lodged at Merta Jail)

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

02/02/2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on

record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.127/2018 of

Police Station Chitawa, District Nagaur for the offences punishable

under Sections 354, 457, 7/8 POCSO Act. He has preferred this

bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

statements of doctor concerned (PW-8), who examined the

prosecutrix have been recorded before the trial court, however,

from the evidence of the said witness, it is clear that at the time of

examination of the prosecutrix, he did not find any proof to the

effect that the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted. It is, therefore,

submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-14245/2019]

case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from

last about more than two years, therefore, he is entitled to be

enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application and while inviting my attention towards the statements

of prosecutrix (PW-6) and argued that the prosecutrix was less

than sixteen years of age on the date of incident and in her Courts

statements, she has specifically levelled allegation that the

petitioner had sexually assaulted her several times. It is further

submitted that so far as the evidence of the doctor is concerned,

at this stage, it cannot be said that on the basis of the said

evidence, the petitioner is not guilty of commission of offence,

therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of

the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to

the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Surabhii/6-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)