Back
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Sunil – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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
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
