Rajasthan High Court
Saamandeep Singh @ Samandeep ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17137/2022
Saamandeep Singh @ Samandeep Singh Son Of Shri Satbir
Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of House No. 450, Khalsa
Niwas, Ramchandrapura, Police Station Gumanpura, Kota At
Present Lodged In The Central Jail Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Gupt Chaupra, P.P.
Mr. Guru Charan Singh Gill with
Ms. Soni Bajaj
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
05/01/2023
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR
No.519/2022 registered at Police Station Gumanpura District Kota
City for the offence(s) under Section(s) 376, 354, 420, 406, 467,
468, 470, 471, 120-B & 469 IPC and Section 66 of the Information
Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (for brevity "the Act of
2008") and later on for the offences under Sections 376(2)(N),
354, 420, 406 & 384 IPC & Section 66 of the Act of 2008.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he
has falsely been implicated in this case wherein, the FIR has been
lodged by a lady of 45 years of age with inordinate delay of about
ten years. Inviting attention of this Court towards the photographs
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-17137/2022]
appended with the memo of the bail application, the agreement
executed in between the parties notarized on 05.10.2020 which
reflects that they married each other, the agreement dated
06.07.2022 to show that the divorce took place in between them,
learned counsel submitted that no offence as alleged is made out.
Learned counsel submitted that even the allegations of
blackmailing, constituting offence(s) under the provisions of the
Act of 2008 and forgery, have been found to be false by the
Investigating Agency after thorough investigation wherein, the
allegations are found to be established prima-facie under Sections
376 (2)(N), 385 & 506 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 05.11.2022, investigation as against
him is complete, trial of the case will take time, he has no criminal
antecedents and prayed for his release on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer.
Learned counsel for the complainant, drawing attention of
this Court towards the copies of various agreements placed by him
on record, would submit that she has taken huge loan on various
occasions on asking of the petitioner and she was compelled to
sell her residential house also by the petitioner in order to grab
the sale consideration. Shri Gill submitted that the petitioner
cannot be extended the benefit of bail due to defective
investigation. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of State of
U.P. versus Hari Mohan & Ors.: AIR 2001 Supreme Court
142. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
Heard. Considered.
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-17137/2022]
As per the allegations in the FIR lodged on 27.09.2022, the
complainant, a widow lady, was being subjected to rape by the
petitioner soon after death of her husband on 25.06.2011. From
the material available in the case diary and the documents placed
on record along with the memo of bail application, it is apparent
that the parties have entered into an agreement notarized on
05.10.2020 stating therein that they have solemnized marriage
and divorce in between them took place on 06.07.2022. The
allegations of the complainant that she was forcibly compelled to
sign these agreements, does not appear to be convincing at this
stage in view of the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC
of Shri Pradeep Singh Hada, the Notary Public who has attested
the agreement dated 05.10.2020, Shri Atul Agarwal, the Notary
Public who has attested the agreement dated 06.07.2022 and Shri
Praveen Kumar Meena & Ms. Diksha Meena, the attesting
witnesses to the agreements. A perusal of the case diary does not
reflect, at least, prima-facie that the Investigation was tainted.
The petitioner is in custody since 05.11.2022, investigation as
against him is complete, trial of the case will take time, he has no
criminal antecedents and in view thereof; but, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and
proper to extend the petitioner benefit of bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed
that accused-petitioner Saamandeep Singh @ Samandeep
Singh Son Of Shri Satbir Singh shall be released on bail under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR
registered at concerned Police Station, provided he furnishes a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only)
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-17137/2022]
together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the
stipulation that he shall comply with all the conditions laid down
under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/91
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
