Shivraj S/O Shri Buddharam vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3714 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1293/2022
Shivraj S/o Shri Buddharam, R/o Sindoliya Ki Dhani, Peeh, Police
Station Pilwa, Tehsil Parbatsar District Nagaur (Raj.)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Vipin Sharma
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

11/05/2022 This anticipatory bail application has been filed under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 144/2021

registered at Police Station Chouth ka Barwada, District

Sawaimadhopur for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A,

376(2)(n), 376-D, 354-A, 344 & 323 of IPC and Sections 5/6, 7/8

& 16/17 of POCSO Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

FIR has been lodged after a delay of seven days. The petitioner

was known to the co-accused Deeparam Choudhary and on his

request, the petitioner had provided his vehicle to Deeparam.

There is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner.

Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner

may be granted.

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-1293/2022]

Court rendered in the case of Mafat Lal & Anr. V/s State of

Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2022) decided on

28.03.2022 and also on the order passed by the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court passed in the case of Mafat Lal & Anr. V/s

State of Rajasthan decided on 09.12.2020 (S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 591/2020.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed

the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record and also judgment cited by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

As per the FIR, the prosecutrix is below 16 years and looking

to her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of CrPC and

also her further police statement dated 30.08.2021, but without

expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I

deem it not proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

PAYAL/17

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)