1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Cr. Misc Bail Application No. 7914/2010 Vijendra Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 25.8.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Sandeep Garssa - for the petitioner Mr Amit Poonia - Public Prosecutor Mr Dinesh Saini – for complainant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. Material on record shows that prosecutrix is a married woman and travelled with the petitioner to many places without raising voice. It is not probable that a femaly may travel with a person without consent, that too, when the petitioner is having disability to the extent of 40% and above. Looking to the aforesaid, petitioner may be granted bail. Learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application. 2 After considering rival submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect outcome of the trial, looking to the facts of this case, I am of the view that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is accepted and it is directed that accused-petitioner namely; Vijendra may be enlarged on bail under section 439 CrPC in FIR No. 172/2010 registered at Police Station – Singhana, Jhunjhunu for offence under Section/s 363, 366 and 376 IPC provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma