SAYRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. cancellation of bail has been filed by the applicant complainant under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 189/2009 for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC against the order dated 17.6.2010 of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Deeg Distt. Bharatpur whereby the accused respondents were granted bail.

(2.) Facts in brief are that one FIR was lodged by the petitioner complainant at Police Station Pahari Distt. Bharatpur for offence under Section 376, 323, and 34 IPC. The Investigating agency after making investigation filed FR and thereafter the complainant filed protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate Kaman, who thereafter took cognizance of the offence. The Judicial Magistrate also recorded the statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate rejected the FR and summoned the accused respondents by non-bailable warrants by its order dated 17.12.2009, The accused respondents aggrieved by the impugned order of cognizance preferred criminal revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Deeg and after issuing notice and calling for the record rejected the revision petition by order dated 17.12.2009. The accused respondents simultaneously moved the anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Deeg and the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Deeg granted anticipatory bail to the accused respondents by its order dated 17.6.2010. Against the said order dated 17.6.2010 granting anticipatory bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Addl. Sessions Judge has wrongly granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the accused respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence alleged against, the accused respondents is for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Hence it' was contended that the anticipatory bail granted to the accused responden should be cancelled.

(3.) On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Harendra Singh Sinsinwar had contended that the accused respondents have not misused the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has also bee contended that they have not made any attempt to tamper with the witness or threatened the witnesses. The accused respondents put their appearance and thereafter they have been granted anticipatory bail.