Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
ROOPARAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Yes, bail has been granted to the accused petitioner Rooparam. The court ordered that he be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, to ensure his appearance in court for every hearing and during the trial period, provided he is not wanted in any other case (!) . The court's decision was based on the fact that the investigation was complete, the accused was in judicial custody, and there was no indication of risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses (!) (!) .
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1.This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.03/2025 registered at Police Station Jalore, Dist. Jalore, for the offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 69 and 88 of BNS.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. As per the prosecution, the petitioner while pursuing studies at Agriculture College, Keshwana, in a deceitful manner assured his class fellow i.e. prosecutrix ‘N’ to solemnize marriage with her and on the aforesaid premise, he committed sexual assault/rape with her on multiple occasions. As per the prosecution, when the prosecutrix ‘N’ became pregnant, the petitioner supplied her certain tablets in order to abort and later on, refuse to solemnize marriage with her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the statements of the prosecutrix ‘N’ recorded under Section 183 BNSS, learned counsel submitted that the relationship between her and the petitioner c
Bail can be granted when the accused is in judicial custody, investigation is complete, and there is no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The court ruled that mere pregnancy does not imply guilt of sexual assault, and the absence of risk factors justified granting bail.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence supporting allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing the context of prior relationships and lack of incriminating materials.
Bail may be granted despite serious allegations if contradictions exist in the prosecutrix's statements and evidence is insufficient to support the charges.
The court granted bail based on the prosecutrix's initial consent to live with the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of specific allegations regarding theft.
The court emphasized that prior acquaintance and lack of evidence of coercion justified granting bail, highlighting the importance of assessing risks of influencing witnesses.
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.
The court granted bail due to contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, suggesting possible false allegations, and no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.
Bail can be granted when there is no risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, especially in lengthy trials.
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
