The court established that inconsistencies in a victim's testimony can significantly impact the decision to grant bail, reinforcing the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.75/2021, Police Station Mahila Thana, Distt. Bundi, for the offences under Sections 366, 376D of IPC and Sees. 3(l)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act against the order dated 14.9.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bundi, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that they have been falsely implicated in this matter grudgely as they have nothing to do with the alleged crime. He submits that the prosecutrix is a grown up lady of 26 years, she left the company of her husband on 8.8.2021 at her own free will and volition and for that, the husband of the prosecutrix lodged a missing person report on 9.8.2021. He submits that in the enquiry conducted in respect of missing person report, the prosecutrix was found on 12.8.2021 and she alleged that accused Nand Kishore and Vinod took her away and committed rape upon her. On the basis of gist of the report, an FIR for the offence under Sec. 376 IPC was registered on 12.8.2021. When during the course of investigation, she was examined under Sees. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, she improved her statement materially where she alleged that after Nand Kishore and Vinod, she was taken and confined by the present appellants and both committed rape upon her and procured her to another accused Nand Bihari who committed rape with her. Counsel submits that the manner in which incident said to have taken place does not inspire confidence, and the story as narrated by her has made material improvements during the course of investigation and has thus made her an unreliable witness. He submits that the accused are in jail and their further incarceration would not be required for any purpose since challan has been filed and trial of the case would likely to take long time to culminate therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the appellants.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

5. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, I am of the opinion that the appellants deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.9.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bundi is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants Bhojraj S/o Durgalal and Dharamraj S/o Hajari Lal arrested in connection with aforementioned First Information Report, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties 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.