Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
DHARAM CHAND @ PINTU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
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.243/2024 registered at Police Station Pur, District Bhilwara for the offence under Section 69 of BNS.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. This Court, looking to the nature of accusations against the present petitioner, vide order dated 04.03.2025, directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the case diary.
4. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 04.03.2025, learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary. Upon a perusal of the case diary, this Court prima facie finds that the prosecutrix ‘P’ is living separately from her husband. The prosecutrix ‘P’ upon being advised by her cousin brother- Nanu Gurjar accepted the proposal of marriage with the present petitioner and went away with him. After living with the present petitioner for some days, she has filed an FIR against the petitioner alleging inter alia that on the pretext of marriage, she was raped by the present petitioner. The petitioner had also snatched money from her and
The court granted bail based on the prosecutrix's initial consent to live with the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of specific allegations regarding theft.
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 granted bail due to contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, suggesting possible false allegations, and no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence supporting allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing the context of prior relationships and lack of incriminating materials.
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 absence of direct evidence of mens rea precludes liability for abetment of suicide, justifying bail for the accused.
The court granted bail considering the relationship between the accused and victim, lack of criminal antecedents, and absence of evidence indicating risk of tampering or flight.
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 due to the lack of evidence against the petitioner and the consensual nature of the relationship with the victim, emphasizing no risk of influencing witnesses.
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
