High CourtsSingle Bench

Vinod Kumar @ Pappu vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 20 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 RAJ CK 0205

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164, 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 344, 354, 354(d), 363, 376(2)(n) · Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 15720 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 · 358 words

The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.150/2020

registered at Police Station Sawar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) for the offence under Section(s) 363, 354, 354(d), 376(2)(n), 344, 120-B of I.P.C. &

under Section(s) 3/4, 5/6, 7/8 & 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after rejection of the first bail application, charge sheet has been filed; hence, the second bail

application. He submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the statement of the prosecutrix dated 15.10.2020 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner is named or the same contains any allegation against him. He submitted that as an afterthought only, in her statement recorded under Section

164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has levelled allegation against him of subjecting her to sexual harassment; but, even therein also, there is no allegation of

subjecting her to rape. He submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.10.2020, 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 has opposed the second bail application.

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the nature of allegations against him, his length of custody,

filing of charge sheet, absence of criminal antecedents 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 petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Vinod Kumar @ Pappu S/o Shri Nathulal shall be released

on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, provided he furnishes a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (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 trial court with the stipulation that he shall comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.