Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
AVINASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
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.270/2024 registered at Police Station Maata Ka Thaan, Jodhpur City East for the offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2) (m) and 65(1) of BNS and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act .
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is aged about 22 years has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards FIR dated 21.12.2024 lodged by the brother of the victim Mst.’M’, learned counsel submitted that in the FIR, it was stated that the victim Mst.’M’ had left the house on 20.12.2024 without informing anyone. The complainant in the FIR suspected that the petitioner might have taken her away by alluring her with the promise of marriage. Drawing attention of the Court towards challan papers and the statements of the victim Mst.’M’ recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., learned counsel submitted that the victim Mst.’M’ in her statements has clearly stated that she had gone away with the p
The court granted bail based on the victim's voluntary actions and lack of allegations of coercion, emphasizing the importance of her statements in the bail decision.
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.
Bail granted due to victim's hostile testimony undermining prosecution's case and consideration of judicial custody duration.
Delay in lodging FIR without plausible explanation undermines prosecution's credibility, justifying bail.
The court determined that a minor's voluntary elopement with the accused, coupled with no evidence of coercion, justified granting bail despite serious 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 emphasized that prior acquaintance and lack of evidence of coercion justified granting bail, highlighting the importance of assessing risks of influencing witnesses.
Bail can be granted in serious allegations when victim's statements indicate consent and the investigation is complete.
The court established that voluntary consent of the victim and lack of evidence of influencing witnesses justified granting bail despite serious charges.
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
