Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 669 (RAJ)

S. B. Urf Ifdin v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-24

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

body2024
ORDER : 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 73/2023 registered at Police Station Barodamev, District Alwar for offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D, 323, 379, 120-B IPC and Sections 5, 6, 16 & 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and later on, the police filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D, 323 IPC and Section 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. Learned counsel submits that no offence was found proved against the accused-petitioner in the investigation and he was not charge sheeted by the police, however, on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix recorded during trial, learned trial Court by exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoned the accused-petitioner as an additional accused through warrant of arrest. 4. Learned counsel further submits that upon summoning the accused-petitioner through warrant of arrest, he appeared before the learned trial Court and moved regular bail application but the same was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecutrix is a married lady and is aged about 17 years. 6. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vikas v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2014 SC (Supp.) 1124, learned counsel submits that the accused-petitioner should not have been summoned directly through warrant of arrest. 7. Learned counsel further submits that DNA Report dated 12th April, 2024 does not support the prosecution story, as no DNA profile could be obtained from Exhibit - 2 (Vagina swab of victim) and Exhibit - 3 (Vagina slide of victim). 8. Learned counsel submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 08th January, 2024 and further custody of the accused-petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail application. 10. Learned counsel submit that there is specific allegation for commissioning of rape with the prosecutrix against the accused-petitioner. They further submit that wounds have also been found on the body of person of the prosecutrix. In view of the above, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may not be accepted. 11. 10. Learned counsel submit that there is specific allegation for commissioning of rape with the prosecutrix against the accused-petitioner. They further submit that wounds have also been found on the body of person of the prosecutrix. In view of the above, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may not be accepted. 11. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the arguments, raised by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, specifically, that the accused-petitioner was not found involved in the offence during course of investigation and has been summoned as an additional accused on recording statement of the prosecutrix under Section 319 Cr.P.C. during the cause of trial; as well as looking to the law, laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vikas v. State of Rajasthan (supra), but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 12. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - S.B. Urf Ifdin S/o Shri. Sallu, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 73/2023 registered at Police Station Barodamev, District Alwar, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.