RAKSHITABHAI RAJESHBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is filed under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989) for seeking regular bail in connection with the FIR, being C.R. No.I- 207 of 2014 registered with Rajkot A-Division Police Station, Rajkot City for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 , 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Sdection 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act and Sections 3 & 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences and Harassment Act (POCSO Act).

(2.) Pursuant to the admission of the present appeal and notice for final disposal vide order dated 1.7.2020, it was expected that the respondent-complainant would respond to the process of this Court. But, on previous occasion, Rule was stated to be not served. As a result of this, vide order dated 23.7.2020, time was given and today, when the matter is posted for hearing, though served, the respondent No.2 has chosen not to appear. As a result of this, upon request of learned advocates, the matter is taken up for hearing.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Nirav Sanghavi appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in fact, in this very complaint, previously, the appellant was already released on regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 10.2.2015 long back but, it appears that on account of some inadvertence, the appellant could not remain present and therefore, warrant was issued against the appellant and then, the appellant came to be arrested. But, according to Mr. Sanghavi, in fact, the appellant with a view to earn livelihood had gone outside for the purpose of labour work and only because of that genuine reason, he could not respond to the hearing. In fact, he has given an assurance that he would cooperate regularly with the trial and will not commit any mistake now in not appearing and considering the fact that this was the only reason for which warrant was issued, the appellant was ready and willing to file even undertaking before this Court as well as before the Trial Court to cooperate with the hearing and to remain present regularly as and when required and as such, keeping this facts and circumstance in mind, a request is made to release the appellant on regular bail. In fact, according to Mr. Sanghavi, the appellant has not committed any offence. The victim as well as the appellant both were in deep love and affection and as such, looking to the nature of the offence and looking to the aforesaid inadvertence, and the fact that the victim as well as the appellant went away on account of free will and volition, the appellant be considered for release on regular bail.