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.

Headnote:(A) BNS Act - Sections 127(3), 308(2), 140(3), and 64(1) - Bail application - Petitioner arrested in connection with FIR for kidnapping and sexual assault - Prosecutrix initially reported missing but later stated she eloped and married petitioner - Contradictions in her statements led to prima facie opinion of false allegations - Bail granted considering no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Judicial custody - The court noted that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, and no apprehension of influencing witnesses was shown by the prosecution. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for alleged kidnapping and sexual assault after the prosecutrix initially reported missing but later claimed she eloped with him and married him.

Findings of Court:
The court found that due to contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, the possibility of false allegations could not be dismissed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of allegations and the prosecutrix's contradictory statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements raised doubts about the credibility of her allegations, warranting bail for the petitioner.

Result: Bail application allowed.

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 25.12.2024, she voluntarily eloped with the present petitioner and travelled with him to various places such as Sanchore, Jodhpur, etc.. She in her statements, further stated that while she was in the company of the present petitioner, she also solemnized marriage with him as per the rights and rituals of the Arya Samaj. The prosecutrix in her statements recorded pursuant to the missing person’s report dated 26.12.2024, has clearly denied the allegation of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to sexual assault/rape by the present petitioner.

5. This Court further finds that later on 01.01.2025, the prosecutrix has lodged an FIR against the present petitioner alleging inter alia that on 25.12.2024, the petitioner forcibly kidnapped her on a knife point and thereafter, made her consume a cold drink containing intoxicant substance. As per the prosecutrix, when she fell unconscious, she was subjected to sexual assault/rape by the present petitioner on multiple occasions.

From the perusal of the case diary, this Court further prima facie finds that while the prosecutrix was in the company of the present petitioner, she had travelled with him to various places and also stayed with him in the hotels situated at thickly populated areas. The prosecutrix despite having ample opportunities, did not disclose the factum of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to sexual assault/rape by the petitioner to anyone.

6. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, looking to the contradictions and variations in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded at different stages, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 25.12.2024, the prosecutrix voluntarily eloped with the present petitioner and travelled with him to various places and thereafter, on relations between them turning strained, she has roped the petitioner in a false criminal case, cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The petitioner who is aged about 26 years is in judicial custody and the trial against him is not likely to be concluded in near future. Learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or his fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Punma Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.03/2025 registered at Police Station Chitalwana, Dist. Sanchore, 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 learn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document