IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Pappu Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMB 2479 of 2025
Decided On : 24-03-2025
(A) BNS Act - Sections 332(b), 64(1), 78(2), 79 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for alleged forcible sexual assault on a married woman - Evidence suggests possibility of consensual relationship - FIR lodged four days post-incident - Petitioner has no criminal antecedents - Investigation concluded. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Judicial discretion in bail matters - Court emphasizes that findings are limited to bail adjudication and do not prejudice the trial court. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a FIR for forcible sexual assault. The victim, a married woman, claimed the petitioner assaulted her; however, evidence indicated a prior friendly relationship. The FIR was filed four days after the incident.
Findings of Court:
The court found prima facie evidence suggesting a consensual relationship, leading to the decision to grant bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the evidence supported the claim of forcible sexual assault or indicated a consensual relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution's claims of forcible assault, allowing for the possibility of a consensual relationship, thus justifying bail.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Order :
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.108/2024 registered at Police Station Kalu (Bikaner), District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 332(b), 64(1), 78(2) and 79 of BNS.
2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Upon perusal of the case file, this Court prima facie finds that the victim Mst.’R’ is a married woman. According to her case, on 21.10.2024, the petitioner came inside her house and committed forcible sexual assault upon her. When she shouted for help, the petitioner was apprehended on the spot by her brother-in-law Shri Anand. The same version has been stated in the statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. with some exception.
4. This Court prima facie finds that though as per the prosecution, the petitioner on the date of alleged incident, has committed forcible sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, however the documents viz. Whatsapp chats and call details attached with the case file, indicate that the prosecutrix was having friendly relationship with the petitioner since long. The FIR has been lodged after about 4 days from the date of alleged incident. The petitioner was beaten by the brother in law and husband of the prosecutrix on the date of alleged incident whereupon he was admitted in a hospital. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, looking to the nature of evidence available on record, the possibility of prosecutrix having consensual relationship with the present petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and the statements of the victim during investigation have already been recorded.
5. Thus, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, is inclined to enlarge the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 22.12.2024 and investigation against whom has already been concluded, on bail.
6. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Pappu Ram S/ o Sohan Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.108/2024 registered at Police Station Kalu (Bikaner), District Bikaner shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
7. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
The court granted bail based on prima facie evidence suggesting a consensual relationship, emphasizing that findings were limited to bail considerations and should not influence the trial.
Delay in lodging FIR without plausible explanation can undermine the credibility of allegations, impacting bail decisions.
Bail can be granted in serious allegations when victim's statements indicate consent and the investigation is complete.
The court granted bail based on the consensual nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the victim, finding no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.
The court granted bail based on the victim's acknowledgment of a consensual relationship and lack of evidence tampering concerns, despite serious charges against the petitioner.
Bail can be granted when there is no apprehension of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and where the prosecution's case lacks sufficient material to support the allegations.
Delay in lodging FIR without plausible explanation undermines prosecution's credibility, justifying bail.
Bail may be granted when the prosecution fails to provide substantial evidence, and there is no apprehension of tampering with witnesses or fleeing from justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.