High CourtsSingle Bench

Anil vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 5 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 RAJ CK 0032

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(V), 14A · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 363, 376D · Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1798 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 368 words

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(Amendment Act, 2015) (for short ""the Act of 1989""). The appellant has been arrested in connection with FIR No.178/2020 registered at Police

Station Mandawari, District Dausa for the offence (s) under Section(s) 363, 376-D of IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and later on for the

offences under Sections 363, 376-D & 120-B of IPC, Section 5/6 & 16/17 of the POCSO Act and under Section 3(2)(V) of the Act of 1989.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecutrix has, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, not levelled any

allegation against the appellant of subjecting her to rape. He submitted that the appellant is in custody since 09.08.2020, charge-sheet has been filed,

trial of the case will take time, he has no criminal antecedents and prayed for his release on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposing the appeal submitted that in view of the gravity of allegation

against the appellant, he does not deserve indulgence of bail.

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature of allegation against the appellant, his

length of custody, filing of charge-sheet, and the material available in the charge-sheet; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail.

The order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act and Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, Dausa is quashed

and set-aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-appellant Anil S/o Ramratan shall be released on bail provided he

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which

the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.