Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2750
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Govind – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10907 of 2022
Decided On : 02-12-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Application
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.363, S.376(3), S.366(a), S.376(2)(n)
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.133
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT : S.5, S.6
Headnote
Bail Application - Delay in FIR Lodging and Identification Issues - The court rejected the bail application of the petitioner due to delay in FIR lodging, identification issues, and inconsistencies in the victim'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 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3), 376(2)(N) of IPC R/w Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. The victim's statement and identification of the accused were contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the bail application, considering the delay in FIR lodging, inconsistencies in the victim's statement, and identification issues. The court emphasized that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and declined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Issues: Delay in FIR lodging, Identification of the Accused, Inconsistencies in Victim's Statement, Minor Victim
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the delay in FIR lodging, inconsistencies in the victim's statement, and the identification issues. The court also emphasized the minor status of the victim at the time of the incident.
Final Decision: The bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the court.
Firoz Khan, Advocate, Anita Gehlot, Advocate, Hanwant Singh, 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.101/2022 of Police Station Salumber, District Udaipur for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3), 376(2)(N) of IPC R/w Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR in this case has been lodged after a delay of one month and the said delay has not at all been explained by the complainant. Counsel further submits that victim specifically stated that one Ranjeet committed rape with her, whereas the name of the present petitioner is Govind and no identification parade was done by the Police in this case. Furthermore, in the school certificate as well as admission form of the victim, there are variations in the age of victim. Counsel further stated that victim has been examined before the Court as PW-1 and there are material contradictions, improvements and omissions in her statement. The petitioner is in the judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Ranjeet and the present petitioner Govind are the same person and when notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act was given to the brother of the petitioner, in reply he clearly mentioned that motor cycle was being driven by the petitioner and he also admitted that Ranjeet and Govind are one and the same person, therefore, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the record.
5. According to the school certificate as well as admission form of school, date of birth of victim is 12.08.2007. As per the statement of victim (PW-1) also, she was 15 years of age at the time of incident and Ranjeet S/o Kalu committed rape with her. Further, as per reply to notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act, brother of the petitioner has stated that the motor cycle was being driven by Ranjeet @ Govind. The victim was minor at the time of incident. In these circumstances without expressing any opinion on merit and demerit of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.
6. In the above circumstances, the bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby rejected.
