Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 343 (RAJ)

Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-30

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. This is second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 185/2016 registered at Police Station Sewar, Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 376, 450 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act. 2. Earlier bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 15.7.2016. The order rejecting bail application of the petitioner on 15.7.2016 reads as under:- "Present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr. P. C. for grant of a regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No. 185/2016, registered at Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur, for offences under Section 376 of IPC and 3/4 of POSCO Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr P.C. From a perusal of a statement of the prosecutrix, even if, offence of rape is not made out yet, it is apparent that the petitioner had made an attempt to commit rape. Taking into consideration, age of the prosecutrix the allegations surfacing during investigation, no ground is made to grant bail to the petitioner who has been arrested only on 10.05.2016. Hence, the present bail application being devoid of merit is dismissed. " 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) has been examined by the trial court as P.W.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix has turned hostile to the prosecution and has not supported its case. The statement of the prosecutrix is annexed with the present bail application as Annexure-A/2. 4. A perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix reveals that the prosecutrix has levelled no allegation against the petitioner. 5. Taking into account that the petitioner is in custody since 10.5.2016 and the prosecutrix has already been examined, this Court is of the view that continuous detention of the petitioner as an under trial is not warranted, as the trial is likely to take some time. 6. Consequently, the present second bail application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial to the satisfaction of the trial court.