The court upheld the principle that serious allegations of sexual offenses, particularly those involving non-consent, are sufficient grounds to deny bail.

Headnote:
[BAIL] - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] - [The court denied the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to serious allegations of rape against the petitioner, supported by the prosecutrix's statements, indicating a lack of consent and the gravity of the charges.]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.592/2022 for serious offenses including rape and related charges. The petitioner claimed the complaint was false and that the relationship was consensual.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecutrix made specific allegations of rape against the petitioner, which were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and determined that these allegations warranted the denial of bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite serious allegations of rape and the prosecutrix's statements indicating non-consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the specific allegations made by the prosecutrix, concluding that these factors outweighed the petitioner's claims of consent and the length of judicial custody.
Result: The bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected.

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.592/2022 of Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 389, 376(2)(N) & 506 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecutrix is a major girl and she lodged a false complaint against the present petitioner. Counsel further submits that the photographs of the petitioner and prosecutrix clearly depicts that the prosecutirx was in love with the petitioner and if anything was happened, that was with the consent of the prosecutrix. 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. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. According to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., a specific allegation for committing rape has been made against the present petitioner.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court in not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document