High CourtsSingle Bench

Parasram vs State, Through Pp

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 4 February 2020 · Citation: (2020) 02 RAJ CK 0068

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Bishnoi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376(2)(N) · Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5, 6 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 647 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

6 paragraphs · 409 words

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.69/2019 of Police Station, Sadar Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and Section 376 (2)(N) of I.P.C.. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of first bail application of the petitioner, statements of prosecutrix and her parents have been recorded as PW-2, PW-1 and PW-3 respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the statements of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she went with the petitioner as per her own free will and lived with him for 2-3 days at various places. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix (PW-2) in her statements has admitted that she had every opportunity to raise alarm when the petitioner kidnapped her but she did not complain to anybody. Learned counsel has further submitted that mother of the prosecutrix (PW3) in her statements has specifically stated that Kishan brought her daughter to her house but her daughter did not state anything to her. Learned counsel has submitted that mother of the prosecutix in her cross-examination has stated that her marriage was solemnized about 20-22 years ago and the prosecutrix was born after one and a half years of her marriage. It is submitted that from the above statements of mother of the prosecutrix, it can be gathered that the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Parasram S/o Shambhulal Dhakad shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.69/2019 of Police Station, Sadar Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.