The Court considered the contradictions in the allegations and the refusal of the prosecutrix to undergo a DNA examination in granting bail to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.166/2019, registered at Police Station Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 354(A), 354(C), 376(2)(N) and 450 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecutrix was involved in an extra marital fling with the petitioner. The FIR was lodged after three months of the first incident of alleged rape. He contended that as a matter of fact, the husband of the prosecutrix came to know about the illicit affairs whereafter, the FIR came to be lodged. He points out that the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. He further submits that there are grave contradictions in the allegations as set out in the belated FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He thus urges that the petitioner, who is in custody since 30.10.2019 deserves indulgence of bail during trial.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. The prosecutrix is a major married woman. It is not in dispute that the FIR came to be lodged after three months of the first alleged incident of sexual intercourse by the petitioner with the prosecutrix. A comparative analysis of the contents of the FIR vis-a-vis the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reveals significant contradictions in the two versions. The prosecutrix was offered to undergo a DNA examination for the test of paternity of the child being carried in her womb but she refused.

6. In this background and having regard to the facts and circumstances available on record but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Ravi arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No.166/2019, registered at Police Station Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur 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 on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.