Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34178 (RAJ)

DINESH KUMAR S/O SHRI GORISHANKAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/15366/2024 · 2025-01-10

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15366/2024 Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Gorishankar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Bilashgarh, P.s. Bhanwargarh, District Baran (Raj.). (Accused At Present Confined In Central Jail Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Ms. Shazadi Bano for Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/01/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS. 2. F.I.R. No. 110/2024 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Bhanwargarh, District Baran (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(1) of BNS, 2023 (376(1) IPC. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that alleged incident took place on 24.09.2024 and on very same day complaint was submitted by the victim before the concerned Police Station but in said complaint, allegation of rape was not levelled. But after seven days of the alleged incident, present FIR was lodged alleging (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15366/2024] commission of rape with regard to the same incident for which earlier complaint was submitted on same day. Victim is a married lady aged about 30 years. Petitioner is in custody since 02.11.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner has previously been convicted vide judgment dated 06.01.2015 for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 & 34 IPC. Thus, bail should not be granted. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that initially for the very same alleged incident, complaint was submitted on the same day wherein no allegation of rape was levelled against the petitioner; charge- sheet has been filed; he is in custody since 02.11.2024 and trial will take time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 8. 8. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Gorishankar shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15366/2024] 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. 9. However, petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in the first week of every month, till trial is concluded. In case, the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to petitioner by this Court. 11. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of these instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. 12. The SHO concerned is directed to maintain a register recording attendance of the accused, as mentioned above. In case, the petitioner fails to mark his attendance as mentioned above, the SHO shall intimate the trial court immediately. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J ANANDTANWAR/203