Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Sunil - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1139 of 2024
Decided On : 05-03-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner is charged under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act - No allegations of rape against the petitioner in the prosecutrix's statements - Bail granted considering the circumstances of the case. (Paras 1-5)
(B) The court emphasized that the absence of direct allegations against the petitioner warranted the granting of bail, highlighting the principle that bail should be granted when the case does not present a strong likelihood of conviction. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is charged with serious offences but the prosecutrix did not allege rape against him, only against a co-accused. The petitioner has been in custody since arrest, and the trial is expected to take time.
Findings of Court:
The court found it just to grant bail based on the lack of direct allegations against the petitioner and the nature of the charges.
Issues: The main issue was whether the absence of allegations against the petitioner justified the granting of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of allegations of rape against the petitioner, coupled with the lengthy trial process, justified the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 105/2023, registered at Police Station Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu wherein he is charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(3)(N) of IPC and Sections 5/6, 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no allegations of rape has been levelled against the petitioner by the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that the prosecutrix has levelled specific allegation of rape against the co-accused Ganesh, Counsel submits that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner.
3. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
4. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that no allegation of rape has been levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and looking to the fact that allegation of committing rape has been levelled against the co-accused Ganesh and looking to the fact that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take its own time to conclude and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
5. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Sunil S/o Late Shree Bablu Valmiki arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appeal before that Court on all dated of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
Bail can be granted when no direct allegations are made against the accused, especially in lengthy trial situations.
The court established that inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's allegations and the absence of a criminal record for the accused are critical factors in determining bail eligibility.
The court considered the inordinate delay in filing the FIR, lack of corroboration of rape allegations with medical evidence, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial in granting bail to the accused.
The court considered the delay in FIR lodging, lack of corroboration with medical evidence, and the age of the prosecutrix in granting bail to the accused-petitioner.
The absence of sexual assault allegations and the anticipated lengthy trial duration influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the accused petitioner.
The court established that prolonged detention without trial, alongside the filing of a charge-sheet and the differentiation of roles in the alleged crime, can justify the granting of bail.
The court upheld the principle that serious allegations of sexual offenses, particularly those involving non-consent, are sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, with the purpose of detention during trial being to secure the attendance of the accused, not punishment.
The court established that bail can be granted when the allegations do not substantiate the charges and when the trial is expected to be lengthy, ensuring the rights of the accused are protected.
Granting bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
