Harbhajan Singh @ Sonu vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8117 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 6194/2022

Harbhajan Singh @ Sonu S/o Jaipal Singh, Aged About 21 Years, B/c Bawri, R/o Village 58 F, Police Station, Gajsinghpur, District Sriganganagar (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Sriganganagar)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Radha W/o Sukhjeet Singh, B/c Bawri, R/o 7Fdm, Suratgarh, At Present Bhagat Singh Colony, Near Malwa Palace, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shravan Kumar Ojha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA cum AAG

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI (VACATION JUDGE)

Order

Reserved on 03/06/2022 Pronounced on 03/06/2022

1. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.

51/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila, Srigangangar for the

offences punishable under Section 376DA IPC and Section 5g/6 of

the POCSO Act, 2012. He has preferred second bail application

under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that

the first bail application bearing SBCRLMB No.9075/2021 was

dismissed, as withdrawn, by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble

Court vide order dated 14.07.2021, while giving liberty to the

petitioner to file fresh bail application, after recording of the

statement of the prosecutrix.

2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the present second

bail application has been preferred, as the statement, not only of

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-6194/2022]

the prosecutrix (PW-1), but also of her mother (PW-2) as well as

seven other witnesses, were recorded before the learned trial

court.

2.2 Learned counsel harped upon the fact that the mother of the

prosecutrix happens to be a habitual blackmailer, as several cases

have been lodged against her in different police stations, with the

allegation that she used to blackmail the persons; further the

mother of the prosecutrix had lodged several cases against those

persons, while changing her identity and name for the said

purpose of falsely implicating them in the concerned case.

2.3 Learned counsel also harped upon the delay in lodging the

FIR, as the incident in question allegedly happened on

10.02.2021, where the FIR was lodged on 14.02.2021, which on

the face of it appears to be an afterthought and thus the present

FIR is nothing but a document containing concocted version, so as

to falsely implicate the present petitioner in this case; this is more

so, in view of the established fact of the mother of the prosecutrix

being an habitual blackmailer, as indicated above.

2.4 Learned counsel however, submits that though the testimony

of certain material prosecution witnesses have already been

recorded, but keeping into consideration the fact that the present

accused-petitioner, who is a young boy aged 21 years, is in

custody since 05.03.2021, and the charge-sheet in this case has

already been filed, so also the fact that the trial is likely to take a

long time, the indulgence of bail may be granted to the present

petitioner.

2.5 Learned counsel relied upon the precedent law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms. Eera through Dr. Manjula

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-6194/2022]

Krippendorf Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., AIR

2017 SC 3457. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment

rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur

Bench in Raju @ Rajkumar Gaudh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Through P.P., 2017(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1521.

3. On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of respondent-State, while vehemently opposing the bail

application, submitted that the age of the prosecutix in this case is

16 years, and further, she maintained consistency in her

statement regarding the allegations in question.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

5. This Court finds that the prosecutrix remained consistent in

her version regarding the alleged incident as well as allegations in

question against the present petitioner, and that her age is far too

less i.e. below 16 years. The arguments advanced on behalf of the

petitioner that the mother of the prosecutrix is a blackmailer, does

not inspire confidence of this Court, at this stage. Moreover, the

judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not

render any assistance to the case of the petitioner. Thus, this

Court is not inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner, at

this stage.

6. Consequently, the present second bail application under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), VJ SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)