Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sarwar Ali Deo vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38960)
2024 Latest Caselaw 8218 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8218 Raj
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sarwar Ali Deo vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38960) on 19 September, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:38960]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11419/2024

Sarwar Ali @ Deo S/o Shri Ranveer Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 1-A Apd, Gram Panchayat Sukhchainpura, P.s. Sameja Kothi,
Dist. Sriganganagar (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar)
                                                                            ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. G.R. Bhari
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. N.K. Gurjar AAG assisted by
                                     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA



                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment / Order

19/09/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of

accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

tabulated herein below:

S.No.                              Particulars of the Case

     2.      Concerned Police Station                    Rawatsar
     3.      District                                    Hanumangarh
     4.      Offences alleged in the FIR                 Sections 450, 376(2)(n),
                                                         384 & 509 of the IPC
     5.      Offences added, if any                      -
     6.      Date of passing of impugned 28.08.2024
             order


2.        The first     bail applications being SBCRLMB No.1547/2024

decided on 22.02.2024. While disposing of the second bail

[2024:RJ-JD:38960] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11419/2024]

application, this Court has afforded liberty to the petitioner to

approach this Court again after recording the statement of the

victim. Now, the statement of the victim has been recorded.

Hence the instant bail application.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that

victim is a major and consenting party thus, no case for the

alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is

not warranted. The relations between the petitioner and the victim

were consensual. There are no factors at play in the case at hand

that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and

he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application

and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of

accused on bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and perused the material made available to the Court.

6. Perusal of the statement of the victim revealing that she is a

major married and grown up lady of 27 years, she knows her

pretty well good and bad. The incident took place on 12.02.2023

when she was first subjected to sexual activity and it seems that

whereafter on several occasions parties have established physical

relations; the report in this regard came to be lodged on

22.11.2023. The plea of the defence regarding falsity of

allegation and embellishment cannot be ruled out at this stage in

view of the unexplained inordinate delay in filing the report. The

victim has been examined thus apprehension of hampering

[2024:RJ-JD:38960] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11419/2024]

witness has also been eliminated. After investigation, charge sheet

has been filed and no useful purpose would be served by keeping

the petitioner behind the bars. Thus, it is deemed suitable to grant

the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

7. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail

is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The

purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial

would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that

he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him.

Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be

presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.

8. Accordingly, the instant second bail application under Section

439 Cr. P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner

as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two

sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the

dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J 54-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter