Rishabh Nagar Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5526 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9174/2021

Rishabh Nagar Son Of Shri Purshottam Nagar, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Patel Ji Ka Mohalla, Village Badwa Police
Station Anta District Baran (Raj.).
                                                        ----Accused-Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. F.R. Meena, PP



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                    Order

01/10/2021

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the

petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R.

No.68/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District

Baran for the offence under Section(s) 376, 376(1) and 376(2)(n)

of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the FIR,

no offence under Section 376 is made out inasmuch as the

petitioner aged 24 years and the prosecutrix aged 28 years, a

teacher/choreographer, were in relationship for more than last

four years. He submits that as per the allegation in the FIR, on the

assurance extended by the petitioner to marry her, consensual sex

took place between them. He submits that the FIR is bereft of any

allegation that from very inception, promise of marriage was false.

Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-9174/2021]

cases of Criminal Appeal No.1165/2019 (@SLP (Crl.)

No.2712/2019): Pramod Suryabhan Panwar Vs. The State

of Maharashtra & Anr., decided on 21.08.2019 and Criminal

Appeal No.233/2021 (Arising our of SLP (Crl.)

No.11218/2019): Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Anr., decided on 01.03.2021, learned counsel

submitted that since no case is made out against the petitioner, he

may be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

A perusal of the FIR and statement of the prosecutrix

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reveals that physical

relationship was established between the parties on the basis of

promise of marriage extended by the petitioner although, the

prosecutrix was sceptical of the prospect of their marriage on

account of family resistence. Her statement also reveals that the

petitioner endeavoured that their family members agree for their

marriage. Parents and other family members of the petitioner

have also visited the family of the prosecutrix twice for this

purpose. The FIR has been lodged when despite promise for their

marriage at Delhi, the petitioner did not reach Jaipur for three

days from where they were to meet and proceed to Delhi together.

The material available in the case diary in the shape of statements

of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

reveals that both were residing together since long as husband

and wife. In view of the aforesaid as also in view of maturity level

and social status of the parties in the back drop of law laid down

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-9174/2021]

in cases of Pramod Suryabhan Panwar (supra) and Sonu @

Subhash Kumar (supra), this Court is inclined to extend the

petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed

that in the event of arrest of petitioner in connection with afore-

mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, the

petitioner Rishabh Nagar Son Of Shri Purshottam Nagar shall

be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the

sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two

sureties in the sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)

each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating

Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner 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

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

MADAN/22

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)