Chotelal S/O Makkhanlal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7066 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7066 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Chotelal S/O Makkhanlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 November, 2021

Bench: Farjand Ali

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 19137/2021

1.       Chotelal S/o Makkhanlal, R/o Vill. Pilwa Tehsil Sikrai Dist.
         Dausa
2.       Rekha D/o Chotelal, R/o Vill. Pilwa Tehsil Sikrai Dist.
         Dausa
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Arvind Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr.Ramesh Choudhary, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

30/11/2021

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 438

Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.366/2019 registered at Police

Station Sikandra, Dausa for the offence(s) under Sections 376,

120-B of IPC & 5/6 of POCSO Act in Fir No. 366/2019 for offence

under Section 376, 120-B of IPC and 3 and 4 of POCSO Act.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that although there were

names of the petitioners in the FIR regarding seducing the

prosecutrix. However, after conducting thorough investigation in

the matter, the Agency had submitted a negative final report

against them. On the basis of independent evidence and scrutiny

of the evidence available on record, the charge-sheet came to be

submitted only against the accused-Heeralal. It is urged that

during the course of the trial of the said accused-Heeralal, the

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-19137/2021]

statement of the prosecutrix got recorded. At that juncture, an

application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. came to be submitted at

the behest of the complainant and the same was allowed by

learned trial Court and thus warrant of arrest has been issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly urged that although

the order arraigning the petitioners as an accused taking resort of

Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is perfunctory and against the law as the

order has been passed by examining the statement under Section

161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. only in stead of examining the evidence

recorded during the trial. He submits that in the celebrity

judgment Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC, 92

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated the law pertaining to

Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by propounding that the word evidence

occurring in Section 319 of Cr.P.C. denotes the evidence recorded

after commencement of the trial.

Be that as it may, the same order has not been challenged

before this Court. However, noticing the fact that the applicants

were exonerated by the Investigating Agency after conducting

thorough investigation and the warrant of arrest has been issued

by the learned trial Court after taking cognizance under Section

319 of Cr.P.C. Although, in light of the judgment passed in the

case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs.State of Uttaranchal in

criminal appeal No.1392/2007 decided on 09.10.2007 at the first

instance, instead of warrant of arrest the accused must be called

through issuance of summons.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

However, he admits that these petitioners were not found involved

in their investigation.

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-19137/2021]

4. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the

petitioners and taking into account the facts and circumstances of

the case; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this court deems it just and proper to allow the anticipatory

bail application.

5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The

S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Sikandra, Dausa in the

aforesaid FIR is directed that in the event of arrest of the

petitioners (1) Chotelal S/o Makkhanlal, (2) Rekha D/o

Chotelal, they shall be released on bail, provided each of them

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two

sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the

following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and