Saddam Son Of Shri Ramjan vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 914 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1826/2020

Saddam Son Of Shri Ramjan, Resident Of Village Neemsara,
Tehsil Peepalada, District Kota Rajasthan (At Present Confined In
Central Jail Kota)
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2.      Victim D/o Shri Umashankar, Aged About 8 Years, R/o
        Neemsara      Tehsil      Peepalda         District      Kota   Rajasthan
        Through Guardian Father Umashankar S/o Shri Ram Nath
        Age 38 Years R/o Neemsara Tehsil Peepalda District Kota
        Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Liyakat Ali present in the Court For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

29/01/2021

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated

20.11.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act and Commission

for Protection of Child Rights Act No.5 Kota, whereby, bail

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

rejected.

2. F.I.R. No.147/2019 was registered at Police Station Khatauli

District Kota for offence under Sections 376, 511, 354(kh) I.P.C.,

Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that father of

prosecutrix was taken in custody, as a complaint was filed from

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-1826/2020]

the side of appellant and it is to counterblast the complaint,

allegations have been levelled against the present appellant.

Appellant has remained in custody for a period of one and a half

year.

4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant

despite service.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has 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 20.11.2020 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

ARTI SHARMA /104

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)