Rajasthan High Court: In a bail application challenging the petitioner’s continued detention despite having victim’s statement which neither named the petitioner nor levelled any allegations against him, a single-judge bench of Anil Kumar Upman, J., granted bail. The Court directed the directed the trial court to provide an explanation for not considering the victim’s statement while rejecting the bail application
In the instant matter, the petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR registered at Police Station Jhalawar Sadar, District Jhalawar. The chargesheet filed after the investigation implicated the petitioner under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner applied for bail before the Special Court, POCSO, but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the impugned rejection order, the petitioner filed the present bail application before this Court.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, and did not commit any offense. It was contended that the victim’s statement recorded on 28-05-2024 does not contain any allegations or even the name of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner has been in custody since 01-06-2024, and the trial’s conclusion is likely to take significant time. It was contended that continued detention of the petitioner violates his constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
However, the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but was unable to counter the fact that the prosecutrix did not name or implicate the petitioner in her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
The Court emphasised that the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is of significant evidentiary value. The Court noted that the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC did not name the petitioner or level any allegations against him. The Court stated that the trial Court failed to consider the critical aspect regarding victim’s statement while rejecting the earlier bail application. The Court criticized the casual approach of the trial court in dealing with bail applications.
The Court also highlighted that 75% of Indian prison inmates are under-trials (as per National Crime Records Bureau statistics, December 2023) and expressed concern over the rising trend of trial courts routinely rejecting bail applications, leading to unnecessary overcrowding of prisons and overburdening of High Courts.
“Dealing with the cases where issue of personal liberty is involved, Courts should be more vigilant and should not adopt casual approach. Time and again Constitutional Courts have emphasized that “Bail is Rule and Jail is Exception”.
The Court highlighted the importance of Judiciary in protecting the rights of each and every individual irrespective of the fact whether they are innocent or guilty of an offence and stated that many such accused are ill-treated in jail premises and are also deprived of basic human needs, while some even die in absence of proper medical facilities in prisons when they are denied the right to bail and seek appropriate care in hospitals.
“Denying such a right in a routine manner even in appropriate cases amounts to failure of the courts in performing the sacrosanct judicial function, which is the paramount feature of the judicial system in this country.”
The Court further emphasised on the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also referenced Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 and highlighted that the procedures restricting liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.
The Court granted bail and directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing, a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the court on all hearing dates.
The Court also sought explanation from the concerned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Jhalawar, to explain why the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was not considered while rejecting the earlier bail application.
[Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Ball Application No. 110371/2024, Decided on 29-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Lakhan Singh Jadoun, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Amit Punia, PP, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
