1
S/1
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5075/2009.
Kesha Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan
Date of Order :: 17th December 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Narpat Singh Khileri, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor.
...
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner is facing trial in Sessions Case No.
88/2007 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases),
Merta for offences under Sections 452, 363, 366-A, 376(2)(g)
IPC and 3(1)(x)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; and has
moved this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
This bail application was filed on 23.09.2009 with
reference to the order passed by the learned Trial Court on
31.01.2009. In this bail application, earlier, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix had
been examined and prayed for time to place on record the
copies of the statements and at request, the matter was
adjourned.
During the course of submissions later, when it was
pointed out that a criminal revision petition is pending in this
2
Court and the original record of the Trial Court has been
requisitioned therein, after supplying of the particulars, the
case file of Criminal Revision Petition No. 178/2009 has been
requisitioned from the office and it is noticed that the original
record of the Trial Court is attached thereto.
It is noticed from the record of the Trial Court that the
prosecutrix was indeed examined in the trial on 07.06.2008
but then, her cross-examination was deferred for want of
documents. Thereafter, her cross-examination was further
deferred on 21.07.2008 at the request of the counsel for the
accused. The prosecutrix again appeared on 08.08.2008 but
for the lawyers abstaining from work, the matter was
adjourned. The prosecutrix again appeared before the Trial
Court on 18.08.2008 but for the same reason, the case was
adjourned again. Then, on a few occasions, though the
prosecutrix did not appear but the record of the proceedings
shows that the counsel abstained from work. The prosecutrix,
thereafter, appeared on 21.10.2008 when an application was
moved on behalf of the accused under Section 190, 193, 204
Cr.P.C. and the prayer was made for adjournment on behalf of
the accused for the purpose of cross-examination. It appears
that thereafter, the matter was considered on the application
moved for taking cognizance against some other persons.
The prosecutrix again appeared before the Trial Court on
3
29.01.2009, but again, for the request made by the counsel
for the accused, the matter was adjourned for her cross-
examination.
The cross-examination of the prosecutrix was not
carried out yet and after few more adjournments with
reference to filing of the revision petition in this Court, the
matter remained pending; and thereafter, as noticed, the
record has been requisitioned in the said revision petition.
In the given set of facts and circumstances, when the
examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix has been recorded in
the trial and her cross-examination has remained pending, this
Court, at this stage, does not feel inclined to grant indulgence
to the petitioner.
The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved
on behalf of the petitioner Kesha Ram S/o Puran Mal @ Purna
Ram stands rejected at this stage; but without prejudice to the
rights of the petitioner to apply for bail afresh after completion
of the statements of the prosecutrix and to take recourse to
other remedies in accordance with law.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
//Mohan//