High CourtsSingle Bench

Lokesh vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 17 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 RAJ CK 0107

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Vyas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 307, 363, 366-A · Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Section 5, 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15110 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

23 paragraphs · 489 words
1.

This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 113/2020

registered with Police Station Manpur, District Dausa for offence under Sections 143, 363, 366-A, 307 of IPC and 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner and the complainant through video conferencing and perused the record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The statements of prosecutrix were recorded

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 16.06.2020, in which, she has not alleged any offence having been committed against her by the present petitioner.

Instead, she has stated that she was not kidnapped by any person but she went on her own free will. It is further submitted that as per charge-sheet,

another application was filed before the concerned Magistrate to again record the statements of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was

rejected by the concerned Court, holding that the previous statements of victim were recorded with her own free will and she also stated that she was

not in any pressure or threat thus, request for again recording the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not accepted by the concerned Court.

On 15.06.2020, she did not give her consent for the medical examination. Her statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 15.06.2020,

in which, she has not alleged involvement of the petitioner in the crime. It is only in the subsequent statement recorded on 12.07.2020 that she has

alleged that offence was committed by the present petitioner. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. There are contradictory versions of

prosecutrix on the record which cast doubt upon the prosecution story. Hence, petitioner be released on bail as conclusion of trial is likely to take

considerable time.

4.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and have argued that the offences are of

serious nature. Hence, the bail application should be rejected.

5.

On consideration of arguments/submissions of both the parties, perusal of material on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,

but without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this court deems it fit to enlarge the accused on bail.

6.

Therefore, the bail application is allowed. Accused-petitioner Lokesh S/o Babulal, shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 113/2020 registered at

Police Station Manpur, District Dausa, if he is not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh 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.