Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2820 (RAJ)

PARMESHWAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019-11-08

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No. 51/2019 of Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 376(D)(A) of IPC and Section 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the allegations against the petitioners of kidnapping the minor daughter of the complainant and sexual assault upon her are absolutely false. It is argued that the minor daughter of the complainant eloped with one Munshi Mohd. from her village and went with him to Andhra Pradesh and lived with him for more than one month. It is submitted that the minor daughter of the complainant was recovered by the police on 24.06.2019 and on the very day her statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she has not levelled allegation of sexual assault against the petitioners and has simply said that the petitioners accompanied the accused Munshi Mohd. when he took her away from her village and thereafter they left her and Munshi Mohd. at Deedwana from where they proceeded towards Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that thereafter on 28.06.2019, supplementary statements of minor daughter of the complainant were recorded, wherein for the first time, she levelled allegation that when she along with accused person Munshi Mohd. were proceeding towards Deedwana all the accused persons have sexually assaulted her in the way. It is submitted that the same statements have been reiterated by the minor daughter of the complainant in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the allegation of sexual assault against the petitioners has been levelled by the minor daughter of the complainant under the pressure of her family members. The petitioners had only dropped her and Munshi Mohd. at Deedwana and they were not aware that Munshi Mohd. kidnapped her. It is also submitted that the owner of the vehicle Maruti Car viz. Hari Ram has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. It is also submitted that petitioner Shaitanram was the driver of that vehicle whereas petitioner Parmeshwar simply accompanied him in the car. at Deedwana and they were not aware that Munshi Mohd. kidnapped her. It is also submitted that the owner of the vehicle Maruti Car viz. Hari Ram has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. It is also submitted that petitioner Shaitanram was the driver of that vehicle whereas petitioner Parmeshwar simply accompanied him in the car. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and trial of the case will take time. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the minor daughter of the complainant in her supplementary statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has levelled allegation of sexual assault against the petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, these bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that petitioners - Parmeshwar S/o Nanuram and Shaitanram S/o Prema Ram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 51/2019 of Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur provided each of them 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.