Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Nath @ Vinod Kumar @ ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 November, 2021
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8980/2021
(Second Bail)
Vinod Nath @ Vinod Kumar @ Dariyanath S/o Sh. Aatmaram,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bhattukala, Tehsil Fatehabad
(Hariyana). (Presently R/o Ratusar, Tehsil Nohar, Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
(Presently Lodged At District Jail, Churu)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
11/11/2021
The present second bail application has been filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial
custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 269/2018, Police Station
Hamirwas, District Churu, registered for the offences under
Section 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. and under Section 5 & 6 of POCSO
Act.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that at the time of
rejection of first bail application, liberty was granted to accused-
petitioner to file fresh bail application after completion of the
statement of the prosecutrix before the Trial Court, thereafter,
statement of prosecutrix are recorded before learned Trial Court
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-8980/2021]
as PW1. Learned counsel further stated that as per written report
available at page No. 10, incident took place on 19.11.2018 and in
the morning of 20.11.2018, after drinking water, prosecutrix
became unconscious till the afternoon of 21.11.2018 whereas as
per statements of Riyaz Mohd. And Smt. Manoj i.e. Aunt (Mausi)
of the prosecutrix, on the evening of 20.11.2018 around 7:00 to
8:00 p.m., prosecutrix 'R' was not found under the possession of
the accused-petitioner but she was with Riyaz Mohd. Learned
counsel stated that statement of prosecution is not supported by
medical evidence and as per FSL report, Serological Test of
semen, no conclusive proof has came out of controls and samples
were used during examination; there is serious contradiction in
allegations mentioned in written report and statements recorded
under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; according to that statements,
prosecutrix 'R' was under the control of accused-petitioner and
that fact was found false; charge-sheet was filed and incident
taken before five to six months of the report and the same was
not corroborated by prosecutrix in her statements; statement of
prosecutrix recorded before learned Trial Court as PW1; statement
of her uncle Hawa Singh (complainant) has also been recorded as
PW2; earlier no other case has been registered against the
accused-petitioner and trial will take time. In support of his
arguments, learned counsel has relied upon following judgment of
different High Court title as 'Ajay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh', 'Pritam Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh',
'Gangaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh', 'Imran Vs. State (Govt
of NCT of Delhi)' etc. With these submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to
the accused-petitioner.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-8980/2021]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and stated that prosecutrix supported the story of
prosecution.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly to the facts that there is serious dispute in allegations
made in written report, statement recorded before trial Court in
regard date of recovery and the fact that there is no explanation
in delay in filing of report after prosecutrix recovered on
20.11.2018 till the filing of report on 23.11.2018 and the issue is
also decided by various High Courts in the judgments relied upon
by learned counsel for the petitioner and trial will take sufficiently
long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the
second bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be
accepted.
Consequently, the second bail application is allowed. It is
ordered that the accused-petitioner Vinod Nath @ Vinod Kumar
@ Dariyanath S/o Sh. Aatmaram, arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No. 269/2018, Police Station Hamirwas, District
Churu, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case;
provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two
surety bonds (one surety shall be a local surety) of Rs.25,000/-
each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the
stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and
as and when called upon to do so.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
94-/Akshay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
