Ansaar Mohammad S/O Jakir vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3968 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5890/2022

Ansaar Mohammad S/o Jakir, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo
Chak Nadola, Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Khan, Adv.

Mr. Manish Parihar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, PP Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya, Adv.

with Ms. Sunita Meena, Adv.

Mr. Azad Ahmed, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

19/05/2022

This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

in connection with FIR No.09/2022 registered at Police Station

Mhaila Thana, District Alwar for the offence(s) under Sections

376(2)(n), 377 and 506 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case. Present complaint was

lodged with wrong facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that complainant and petitioner were living in relationship

since 2015. Complainant was married lady. There is no false

promise of marriage between the parties. Complainant consensual

relationship with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner

also submits that complainant has got Government Job. So, the

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-5890/2022]

complainant has lodged the present complaint due to enmity. So,

the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) Prashant Bharti Vs.State of NCT

of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.175/2013 (Arising out of SLP

(Criminal) No.1800/2009) decided on 23.01.2013 and (2)

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra &

Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.1165/2019 (Arising out of SLP

(Crl.) No.2712/2019) decided on 21.08.2019.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted that complainant had

taken divorce from her husband and have living in relationship

with the petitioner because he had promised to marry her. They

further submitted that due to relation, one female child was born.

Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also required for DNA

test. So, the anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and

learned counsel for the complainant.

It is an admitted position that petitioner had made the

relation with complainant by promising to marry her and due to

their relation, one female child was born. So, looking to the

gravity of offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the

petitioners on anticipatory bail.

Hence, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /103

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)