Asif S/O Shri Sultan vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 666 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
                                 955/2022
Asif S/o Shri Sultan, Aged About 25 Years, Near Gogamedi
Temple Khiroad Ps Navalgarh Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj. (At Present
Accused Confined In Central Jail Sikar)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order

25/01/2022

1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section

439 of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No. 611/2019 was registered at Police Station Ydyog

Nagar, District Sikar for offences under Sections 143, 363, 365,

384 and 376-D of IPC and Sections 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that prosecutrix

is nearing the age of majority. Board certificate was not produced

before the Court below to establish her age. It is also contended

that initially, the allegation was against two persons. In her

statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.,

however, in Court statement prosecutrix has levelled allegation

only against the present petitioner. It is further contended that out

of 22 witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far.

Petitioner has remained in custody for a period of two years and

four months. It is also contended that there is delay of two

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-955/2022]

months in lodging of FIR and the matching of DNA profile cannot

be used against the petitioner as there is inordinate delay in

lodging of the FIR and recovery of the under garments. Conclusion

of trial will take time.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail

application.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Taking note of the fact that there is delay of two months in

lodging of FIR. No obscene material was recovered from the

petitioner. Out of 22 witnesses, only one witness has been

examined so far and petitioner has remained in custody for a

period of two years and four months. There is material change in

the statement of the victim. Initially, she has levelled allegation

against two persons and later in her Court statement, she has

levelled allegation only against the present petitioner, hence, I

deem it proper to allow the second bail application.

7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is

directed that accused petitioner 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 learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear

before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred,

on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to

do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /10

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)