High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 12 RAJ CK 0021

Purshottam Sharma vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 16 December 2016 · Citation: (2017) 1 WLCRajUC 163

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mrs. Sabina, J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1361 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 335 words

Mrs. Sabina, J.—Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14(A) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 575/2015 registered at Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur East, for offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and after investigation filed charge sheet under Sections 363, 366, 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(12), 3(2)(5) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

Heard.

3.

Prosecution story in brief is that the appellant had raped the prosecutrix.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in-fact prosecutrix and the appellant were having a love affair. Prosecutrix had left her home with the appellant of her own accord with a view to perform marriage with him. However, marriage of the prosecutrix could not be performed with the appellant as she was a minor. Parents of the prosecutrix did not want to perform marriage of the prosecutrix with the appellant. After the recovery of the prosecutrix, parents of the prosecutrix performed her marriage with some other person. Prosecutrix had also admitted in her statement during trial that she had left her home with a view to perform marriage with the appellant and had taken all the documents with her. Learned counsel has further submitted that statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded during trial and now there is no chance of pressurizing the prosecutrix in any manner. Petitioner is in custody since 27.9.2015. Petitioner is a young boy aged about twenty one years.

5.

Learned State Counsel on the other hand, has opposed the appeal.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to order the release of the appellant on bail.

7.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this appeal is allowed. Appellant be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the Trial Court.