Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2836 (RAJ)

Javed Hussain v. State of Rajasthan

2006-10-09

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned order. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Gopal Arora s/o Lal Chand Arora case was registered for offences punishable under Section 292, I.P.C., read with Section 67, Information Technology Act and 4/6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1996 in which the petitioner was arrested and his first bail application was rejected by this Court when investigation was going on vide order dated 25.4.2006. Thereafter, after completion of investigation second bail application was moved, which, too, was dismissed by order dated 5.7.2006. However, while rejecting the petitioner's second bail application, it was observed that the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh bail application after recording of statements of Usha Arora and her brother Gopal Arora (complainant). 3. Now, the present third bail application has been moved after recording of statements of PW.-1 Chandrasheel, P.W.-2 Randheer Singh Mirdha, P.W.-3 Gopal Singh, P.W.-4 Gopal Arora (complainant) and PW.-5 Usha Arora. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the prosecution story, an information was given by the petitioner with regard to preparation of clipping cf one Sheetal Nandwana and, as per his information, the said clipping was recovered from the house of the petitioner; but, sheetal Nandwana has not been included in the list of witnesses to prove the prosecution case and the petitioner has nothing to do with the preparation of clippings of Usha Arora, P.W.-5. It is further contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the FIR filed by P.W.-4 Gopal Arora, brother of Usha Arora. It is also contended that at the time of recording statement the mobile which is said to be recovered from the petitioner Javed was tried to be opened but it was not opened. It is further contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the FIR filed by P.W.-4 Gopal Arora, brother of Usha Arora. It is also contended that at the time of recording statement the mobile which is said to be recovered from the petitioner Javed was tried to be opened but it was not opened. The prosecution also prayed for calling expert to open the mobile but no permission was granted by the Court for calling the expert to open the mobile; meaning thereby, before the Court neither Sheetal Nandwana was arrayed as witness alongwith the charge-sheet nor the said mobile, alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, was opened before the Court as per the note made at page 9 of the statement of P.W.-1 investigating officer Chandersheel Thakur. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, there is no evidence on record till date with regard to allegation of preparation of obscene representation through mobile. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all allegations with regard to publicizing the obscene MMS is against the accused Supratik and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise, too, the material witnesses in the case P.W. 4 Gopal Arora (complainant) and P.W.-5 Usha Arora have turned hostile and deposed before the court in their statements against the prosecution. 5. I have perused the statement of the investigating officer P.W.-1 Chandrasheel Thakur and also taken into consideration the note at page 9 of his statement which reads as under: " uksV&eqfYte tkosn ls tCr eksckbZy dks pykdj xokg us ns[kuk pkgk fdUrq ;g ugha pykA vfHk;kstu bl lEcU/k esa ,DliVZ cqykuk pkgrs gSa ijUrq bl LVst ij bUgsa vuqefr fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gS vkSj bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ fof/kd izko/kku Hkh ugha gSA vfHk;kstu dks pkfg;s Fkk fd og iw.kZ rS;kjh djokdj c;ku izkjEHk djkrsA " 6. I have also perused the list of witnesses annexed to the charge-sheet. There is no mention with regard to evidence of Sheetal Nandwana whose obscene clip picture is said to be prepared in the mobile allegedly recovered from the petitioner. 7. Upon perusal of statements recorded by the trial Court, it is not proper to enter into the merit of the case. There is no mention with regard to evidence of Sheetal Nandwana whose obscene clip picture is said to be prepared in the mobile allegedly recovered from the petitioner. 7. Upon perusal of statements recorded by the trial Court, it is not proper to enter into the merit of the case. However, something must be said about the unfortunate part of this case. Technological advancements have brought in innumerable gadgets and appliances for the use of the society and the lamentable aspect of this is that with the advent of mass tele -communication systems it has not lost any time to fall prey to perversity which must be checked by law with heavy hands while they pose danger and insecurity to the society. The State is under obligation to perform its duty and, rightly so, thorough investigation must be made where obviously the offences are armed at social degradation. But, at the same time, the citizens have still greater duty to perform for thwarting the nefarious attempts at harming the social health. Returning to the matter in hand, there is statement of Usha Arora on record and, in her statement, she has stated that she has got married. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, in the facts and circumstances, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner(s) on bail. 9. Accordingly, the application moved under Section 439, Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Javed Hussain s/o Manjoor Hussain shall be released on bail (in FIR No. 208/2006, P.S. Rajnagar (Distt. Rajsamand) provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and furnishes two sound and solvent sureties for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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.Bail Granted. *******