Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 May, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 3935/2021
Suresh Singh S/o Sh. Mangalsingh, Aged About 25 Years, B/c
Rawat, R/o Guda Bhopa, P.s. Siriyari, Tehsil Marwar Junction,
Dist. Pali. (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
19/05/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
allegations of abduction and sexually assaulting the
prosecutrix, levelled against the petitioner, are absolutely
false. It is submitted that the prosecution has erred in
treating the prosecutrix as minor. Learned counsel for the
petitioner while inviting my attention towards the
statements of mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has
argued that she herself has admitted that she got
married to Dunga Ram around 20-21 years ago and the
prosecutrix born after three years of the marriage. It is
submitted that from the above, it is clear that the
prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age on the day of
incident. Learned counsel has also argued that from the
statements of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she was
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-3935/2021]
allegedly abducted by the petitioner and kept in his house
where he raped her, then one Sukhdev came there but
she did not inform him about the rape and from the
above piece of evidence, it can be gathered that no such
incident of rape has taken place. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody
since April, 2020 and trial of the case will take time. It is,
thus, prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the bail application and argued that from the statements
of the prosecutrix as well as the Doctor namely Anusuiya
(PW-5), it is clear that the prosecutrix was sexually
assaulted by the petitioner. It is argued that so far as age
of the prosecutrix is concerned, the documents pertaining
to the Government School suggest that on the day of
incident, she was minor. It is, thus, submitted that in the
facts and circumstances of the case and taking into
consideration the fact that the petitioner is guilty of
committing heinous crime, he is not entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
Having gone through the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, without considering the merits
of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail.
Hence, this second bail application is dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
13-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
