IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of rule and being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases.

JUDGMENT

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 of the CrPC. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with CR Case No:122/2013, P.S. Mahila Thana (West), Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 342, 376, 354A, 506, 509/34 of the IPC, Section 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for bail submitted that the petitioner is an unmarried girl. She joined Asa Ram Gurukul, Chhindwara (M.P.) only in the month of April, 2013. There is no allegation against her. The only evidence available with the Investigating Agency to connect the petitioner with the offence are the telephone calls between her, the co-accused of Shiva and Prakash, However, no text of the said conversation is available Hence, the said telephone calls between three of them cannot be taken into consideration. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Prahlad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.1

3. Learned counsel further argued that as per the medical report, there was no sign of rape having been committed. The prosecutrix was not a minor. The allegations are only of attempt. Hence, no offence under Section 376/34 of the IPC or Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2.012 is made out against the petitioner. Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Siddhharam Sattlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.2 to contend that great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest and in cases where court is of considered view that accused has joined investigation and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided and anticipatory bail should be granted.

4. It was also contended that accused petitioner neither hatched the criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons nor sent prosecutrix to village Manal where the said offence is stated to have been committed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Asa Ram had never met the prosecutrix. Hence, the question of the present petitioner acting at the behest of Asa Ram to send the girl to Ashram does not arise. Further, the petitioner never talked to Asa Ram or his Sevak Shiva on telephone. She never met Asa Ram while she was working on the post and Asa Ram has also never met her. Asa Ram is only a trustee of the said Gurukul and he has no direct control over the Gurukul.

5. It was further stated that the petitioner has already faced the interrogation by the police and her statement was also recorded. Hence, the accused petitioner is not required for investigation. However, if the Investigating Agency requires her for further investigation, she was ready to appear before the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his argument by stating that the petitioner is a young lady. She had no knowledge and nor was there any communication between her and main accused Asa Ram. She is only Warden of the Gurukul. She simply guided the parents of the prosecutrix to show her to a good doctor. Since the petitioner had already joined the investigation and was further ready to cooperate with the investigation, her custodial interrogation is not necessary.

6. Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Renu Vij v. State3, wherein it was held that mere knowledge is not sufficient and there should be a meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means to contend that in the absence of any evidence of knowledge or connivance, Section 120B cannot be invoked in her case.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General while opposing the bail denied that the petitioner had joined the investigation. It was contended that at the first instance, when the complaint wa