Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2141
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2031 of 2022
Decided On : 09-03-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Application in Rape Case
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.342, S.363, S.366(a), S.376(d)
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT : S.11, S.12, S.3(r), S.3(w), S.4
Headnote
Bail Application - Allegations of Rape - Contradictions in Prosecutrix's Statement
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with an FIR for offences including rape. The petitioner argued that there were contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, and therefore, bail should be granted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considered the arguments and material on record, noting that the prosecutrix, aged about 12 years, had clearly mentioned the involvement of other accused in the rape. The Court found that no case was made out for the grant of bail and dismissed the bail application.
Issues: Allegations of rape, contradictions in prosecutrix's statements, grant of bail
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the prosecutrix's statement and the lack of mention of the petitioner's name in the police statement to conclude that no case for bail was made out.
Final Decision: The bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed at this stage.
Mangi Lal Vishnoi, Advocate, Anees Bhurat, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.259/2021 Police Station Osiyan, District Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(a), 342, 376(D) IPC and Sections 3 R/w 4 and 11 R/w 12 of POCSO act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the FIR as well as statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, allegations for committing rape has not been levelled against the petitioner and for the first time in the Court, when she examined as PW1, she named the petitioner and allegations for committing rape has been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, there are contradictions in the statement of prosecutrix. In these circumstances, the bail may be granted to the petitioner.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application filed by the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the material available on record.
6. The prosecturix is aged about 12 years and in her Court statement she clearly mentioned that Fula Ram, Kalu Ram and Ramesh all the three accused committed rape with her and in cross examination she also mentioned that she named the petitioner in the Police statement but the Police has not mentioned the name of present petitioner. Therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed at this stage.
