Bijesh @ Vijay Kumar S/O Shri Madan ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 939 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1845/2020

Bijesh @ Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Rampura, Post Kheda, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar.
(At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor.
2.       Victim, R/o
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Bal Ram Vashisth
For Complainant(s)          :     Mr. Manoj Kumar with Mr. Lokesh
                                  Kumar, Mr. Rajat Kumar Jat
For State                   :     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

12.11.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, whereby, bail application

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

2. F.I.R. No. 408/2020 was registered at Police Station

Pragpura, Jaipur for offence under Sections 376(2)(gha), 327,

366, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of SS/ST

Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that a missing

person report was lodged on 14.07.2020. Girl was recovered on

03.08.2020. Complaint has been filed on 24.08.2020. At the time

when the girl was recovered, her statement was recorded wherein

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-1845/2020]

she stated that she went on her own free will and no offence

whatsoever was committed with her. It is contended that now the

prosecutrix has made up a case that two years prior to the date of

incident, she was raped by appellant. It is argued that there is no

reason why prosecutrix would go with the appellant if he rapped

her two years prior to the date of the incident. It is also contended

that prosecutrix stayed with the appellant for almost twenty days

without raising any alarm.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the appeal. It is contended that there is specific

allegation under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with regard to rape.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

7. The order dated 12.11.2020 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

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /74

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)