Vasudev @ Vasu S/O Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 265 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1733/2020

Vasudev @ Vasu S/o Ramesh, R/o Village Kawai, Police Station
Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (At Present The Applicant Is In
Judicial Custody In The Central Jail At Bharatpur Since 30-08-
2017)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.      Victim D/o Shyamlal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village
        Mai, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nripendra Sinsinwar For Complainant(s) : Mr. Anshul Sharma, through VC For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

13/01/2021

1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated

05.08.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act and Child Right

Protection Act Cases, No. 02 Bharatpur (Rajasthan), whereby, bail

application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was

rejected.

3. F.I.R. No.396/2017 was registered at Police Station Nadbai,

District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 363, 365, 366-A,

376-D I.P.C.

4. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the FSL

Report does not point out towards commission of the offence. The

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-1733/2020]

vaginal swab and dress of the prosecutrix did not contain any

human semen. It is also contended that no mark of injuries were

found on the person of the prosecutrix. Appellant was not

identified in the test identification parade. It is also contended that

appellant has remained in custody for a period of more than three

and a half years. Conclusion of trial will take time.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the appeal.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

8. The order dated 05.08.2020 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

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /59

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)