SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Raj) 2166

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Imran Qureshi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9385 of 2013.
Decided On : 26-11-2013

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:S.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Party: Anil Upadhayay, Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

Bail Application - Contradictory Statements - The court granted bail to the petitioner based on the highly contradictory versions of the incident disclosed in the F.I.R. and the statements of the prosecutrix, as well as the medical examination report indicating that the prosecutrix's hymen was found to be intact.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with F.I.R. No. 165/2013 for offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(12) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found highly contradictory versions of the incident in the F.I.R., statements of the prosecutrix, and the medical examination report, leading to the grant of bail to the petitioner.

Issues: The issues revolved around the contradictory statements of the prosecutrix and the medical examination report indicating an intact hymen.

Ratio Decidendi: The highly contradictory versions of the incident and the medical examination report influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the petitioner.

Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing the required bonds.

JUDGMENT

1. - The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 165/2013, registered at the Police Station Sursagar for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(12) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix has given highly contradictory statements in the F.I.R., in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 2.7.2013, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 5.7.2013 and in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.8.2013. He submits that in the F.I.R., the incident of rape is alleged to have taken place near the railway station, whereas, as per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the incident of rape is alleged to have been taken place called Dhingana. In the F.I.R. and in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner took her away on a motorcycle, whereas, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.8.2013, she stated that the petitioner did not take her on the motorcycle and instead she has been subjected to forcible rape near the cremation ground. Learned Counsel submits that as per the medical examination report of the prosecutrix, her hymen was found to be intact and she was found to be a virgin. Learned Counsel thus prays that the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar, perused the order impugned as well as the challan papers.

5. Upon a perusal of the challan papers it is evident that highly contradictory versions of the incident were disclosed in the F.I.R., in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded during investigation as well as in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per the age and sex examination report of the prosecutrix, her hymen was found to be intact. The Medical Officer has stated as under:-

"Nothing is suggestive that she is not virgin."

6. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the instant application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

7. Consequently, this bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner namely - Imran, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 165/2013, registered at the Police Station Sursagar shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/-/each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court oh all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so/till the completion of the trial.Bail application allowed.

*******


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top