Rajasthan High Court
Rahul Kumar Son Of Shri Ramdayal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9935/2022
Rahul Kumar Son Of Shri Ramdayal Valmiki, Aged About 21
Years, Resident Of Near Sheetla Mata Temple, Gauri Aashram,
Bapu Colony, Balita Road, Police Station Kunhadi, District Kota
(Raj.)
(At Present Petitioner Confined At Central Jail Kota)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP for the State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment / Order
22/11/2022
This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed
by petitioner in connection with FIR No.249/2022 registered at
Police Station Kunhadi, Kota City, District Kota (Raj.) wherein he
is charged for offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376(2)
(n), 376(2)(i), 376(3) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section
5(1)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entries made in
the school record with regard to date of birth of the victim, are
incorrect. Counsel submits that in one of the school record the
date of birth of the victim has been mentioned as 13.04.2006
while in another school record, the date of birth has been
mentioned as 05.10.2004. Counsel submits that the prosecution
itself is not sure about the correct date of birth of the victim.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-9935/2022]
Counsel submits that as per the statement of Mayur Sharma,
Manager of Hotel Kalyan, it is clear that the victim has shown her
I.D. for staying in the said hotel indicating her age above 18
years. Counsel submits that during the course of investigation,
the said identity card of victim was not recovered/seized by the
police to bring the correct date of birth on the record. Counsel
submits that the age of the victim was above 18 years and she
was in relationship with the petitioner and both of them executed
a document of promise to marry with each other. Subsequently,
some dispute arose between both of them due to which false
allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Counsel
submits that under these circumstances indulgence of bail be
extended to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the victim was minor at the time
of the incident and consent of a minor is no consent in the eye of
law. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get indulgence of bail
by this Court.
Heard and considered the rival submissions made at the
bar.
The dispute with regard to correct date of birth of the victim
would be determined by the trial court at the appropriate stage of
trial. The two documents furnished before this Court with regard
to age of the victim indicate that at the time of the incident, the
victim was below 18 years.
Perusal of the document of the promise executed on
10.05.2022 itself indicates that at the relevant time, the age of
the victim was 16 years and it was agreed between the parties
that the victim would solemnize marriage with the petitioner after
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-9935/2022]
attaining the age of 18 years i.e., after becoming major, meaning
thereby, the document of promise itself indicates that at the time
of the incident the victim was minor and consent of a minor is no
consent in the eye of law. Therefore, without going further into
the merits of the case, which would affect the trial, I do not find
the present case to be a fit one to grant bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the present bail application stands dismissed.
The petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for
bail after recording the statement of the victim by the trial Court.
However, it is made clear that while deciding this
application, anything observed herein shall not be construed as
an expression on merits of the case. It is further made clear that
the observations made while deciding this bail application are
simply the arguments advanced by both the parties and the same
shall not, in any way, effect the learned Trial Judge in forming his
independent opinion based on testimony of the witness during
the course of trial.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Mohita /27
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
