Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
KAMLESH KUMAR – 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.03/2025 registered at Police Station Chitalwana, Dist. Sanchore, for the offences under Sections 127(3), 308(2), 140(3) and 64(1) 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 the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, vide order dated 03.02.2025 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the case diary. Pursuant to the order dated 03.02.2025, learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court.
4. From the perusal of the case diary, this Court prima facie finds that initially on 26.12.2024, the brother of the prosecutrix lodged a missing person’s report at P.S. Chitalwana, District Sanchore stating inter alia that her sister is missing from home since 25.12.2024. Pursuant to the missing person report lodged by the brother of the prosecutrix, when the prosecutrix was discovered by the investigating agency, she in her statements recorded on 31.12.2024 stated that on 25.12
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 considering the relationship between the accused and victim, lack of criminal antecedents, and absence of evidence indicating risk of tampering or flight.
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 determined that a minor's voluntary elopement with the accused, coupled with no evidence of coercion, justified granting bail despite serious charges.
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 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.
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 victim's acknowledgment of a consensual relationship and lack of evidence tampering concerns, despite serious charges against the petitioner.
The court ruled that mere pregnancy does not imply guilt of sexual assault, and the absence of risk factors justified granting bail.
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
