The absence of sexual assault allegations and the anticipated lengthy trial duration influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the accused petitioner.

Headnote:
Bail - Offences under IPC and POCSO Act - The court granted bail to the accused petitioner based on the absence of sexual assault allegations in the statement of the prosecutrix and the anticipated lengthy trial duration.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and 11/12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Finding of the Court:

The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, granted bail to the accused petitioner based on the absence of sexual assault allegations and the anticipated lengthy trial duration.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and 11/12 of the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of sexual assault allegations and the anticipated lengthy trial duration influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the accused petitioner.
Final Decision: The bail application filed by the petitioner was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing the specified personal bond and sureties.

JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Mathur, J. - The application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.239/2022, registered at Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 IPC and 11/12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner so also the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it is clear that no allegation of sexual assault has been levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused petitioner.

4. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner.

5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

6. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rahul S/o Dulichand arrested in connection with FIR No.239/2022, registered at Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand shall be enlarged on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so, till completion of the trial.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document