Shahid @ Raja Kureshi Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2861 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/004108]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 288/2023

Shahid @ Raja Kureshi Son Of Shri Ikramudeen Kureshi, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of Kurishi Mohhalla, Shyam Nagar
Colony Phulera, Thana Phulera District Jaipur (Presently Confined
In Central Jail Phulera, District Jaipur)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.       Ramavtar Son Of Kalyan Balai, Resident Of Word No. 2,
         Krisna Vihar Purana Phulera, District Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :    None
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
For Complainant(s)         :    None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

14/03/2023

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner as well as

respondent No.2 after service.

Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the

Court in judicial proceedings since last more than three weeks,

though, they have no grievance against the Court administration.

The Apex Court in the judgment of Harish Uppal Vs. Union

of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 observed that

non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one,

rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial

matters according to the law even in the absence of the parties

and/or their Advocates.

[2023/RJJP/004108] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-288/2023]

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.254/2022 Registered at Police

Station Phulera, Jaipur (Rural) for the offence(s) under Sections

363, 366-A, 323, 506 IPC, Sections 16 & 17 of POCSO Act and

Section 3 (2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act (later on

offence(s) under Sections 363, 366-A, 323, 506, 504, 376(2-I) of

IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3-2(v) of SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocity) Act was found to have been made out).

Petitioner in his pleadings mentioned that he has been falsely

implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since long. The

police after completion of investigation has filed the charge-sheet

and conclusion of trial may take long time. Hence, he may be

enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application

and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that

petitioner had raped a minor girl and prosecutrix in her statement

fully supported the prosecution story. So, bail application be

dismissed.

I have considered the pleadings of the petitioner as well as

arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor.

Allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner had raped

a minor girl. So, looking to the seriousness and gravity of offence,

I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Hence, the bail application filed by the petitioner stands

dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /07

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)