[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Manoj vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25482) on 23 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:25482]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 14925/2024
Manoj S/o Bahadur Ram @ Bachu Ram, Aged About 20 Years,
R/o Badhsar, P.S. Sandva, District Churu
(At Present Lodged At Central Jail Nagaur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Sugna Ram, R/o Jamasar Bas, Tausar
P.s. Nagaur Dist Nagaur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Bera
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha,PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Piyush Chouhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
23/05/2025
This 2nd application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.215/2024, registered at Police Station
Kotwali Nagaur, District Nagaur for offences under Sections 363,
366(A), 343 & 376(DA) of the IPC and 5(G)(L)/6 & Sections 11/12
of POCSO.
The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner has
been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 26.09.2024, passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.11724/2024, with a direction to record the
statement of the victim at the earliest possible.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the
material available on record.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:16:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25482] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14925/2024]
As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Kalu
Ram has given a written report to the effect that his grand-
daughter, aged about 16 years, left her residence on 28.04.2024
at around 11-12 pm, without informing him. Her moblie phone
was also switched off. Her parents lived in Hyderabad. During
investigation it revealed that accused Manoj Kumar took away his
grand-daughter and committed rape with her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel further submitted that there are major contradictions in
the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164 of
the Cr.P.C and it doesn’t provide any concrete evidence about the
alleged crime against the present petitioner. In the cross
examination she stated that accused has not committed any
wrong with her.
Learned counsel further submitted that in the statement of
the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix
stated that she and the petitioner were known to each other and
she went ahead with him out of her free own will. Learned counsel
submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and no
recovery is pending agaisnt the accused-petitioner.
Learned counsel further submitted that the accused-
petitioner is in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case
will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-petitioner
may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:16:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25482] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14925/2024]
and submitted that accused has committed a heinous crime of
rape with the prosecutrix. Therefore, he prayed that looking to the
gravity of the offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the
present petitioner.
The prosecutrix was examined before the court as PW-1. She
in her examination-in-chief has stated that on 28.04.2024 Manoj
had kidnapped her. Manoj took her on the motorcycle and
thereafter on the truck. At that time his uncle was also with him
who was the driver of the truck. When driver of the truck went
outside the truck, Manoj committed rape with her. During the way,
whenever driver went out of the truck, Manoj committed rape with
her. She identified accused Manoj in the court.
This Court finds that the consent of the procutrix who is a
minor holds no relevence in the eyes of law. The involvement of
the accused in the commission of offence can be ascertained only
after recording of other relevant witnesses.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
considering the statements of the prosecutrix, without
commenting on the merits/demerits of the cases, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.
The 2nd bail application is, therefore, rejected at this stage.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
11-JatinS/-
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:16:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link