LAWS(GJH)-2024-1-185

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MUKESHBHAI RAJABHAI BHARVAD

Decided On January 10, 2024
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Mukeshbhai Rajabhai Bharvad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has prayed to quash and set aside the order dtd. 23/5/2022 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch - Ankleshwar in Criminal Misc. Application No.324 of 2022, whereby the learned Session Judge has granted regular bail granted to the respondent - original accused in connection with offence punishable under Ss. 376(3), 323, 337, 504, 506(2), 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Ss. 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Ss. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)5, 3(2)(5-A), 3(1)W(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 registered vide Cr. 11199005220171 of 2022 before Netrang Police Station.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that on the date of incident while the victim after taking dinner had gone out, at that time, she received a message in her mobile phone from the accused no.1-respondent no.1 asking her to come at the terrace of one Mr.Kishorbhai Mahraj threatening her that in failure of her coming, he will cut his hand and therefore victim having scarred went to terrace; where accused - respondent no.1 caught hold of her hand forcibly and slept her on the terrace and by one hand pressed her mouth and after removing clothes committed rape. It is also alleged in the FIR that in the meantime father of the victim came on the terrace searching her. Accused no.1 ran away to his terrace while org. accused nos.2 and 3 caught hold of the first informant while he was chasing org. accused no.1 and caused injury on back side of head with brick, as also gave kick and fist blows and in furtherance by uttering derogatory words of his caste committed the offence.

(3.) Heard Mr.H K Patel, learned APP for the petitioner and Mr.M M Saiyed, learned Advocate for org. accused No.1- respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 though served did not remain present to contest the petition.