Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 353

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
AVINASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1158 / 2025

Advocates:
Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit, Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP, Mr. Jitendra Choudhary for complainant

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.

Headnote:(A) BNS Act - Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 65(1) - POCSO Act - Sections 5/6 - Bail application - Petitioner, aged 22, arrested for alleged offences against minor victim Mst.’M’ - Victim stated she left voluntarily with petitioner, denying allegations of abduction or assault - Court finds no prima facie case for denial of bail - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Judicial Custody - The court considers the duration of custody and the nature of allegations in deciding bail applications, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of the victim's statements. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR alleging offences under the BNS Act and POCSO Act. The victim, a minor, left home voluntarily and later became pregnant while with the petitioner. The court noted her statements indicated no coercion.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation was concluded, and the victim did not allege abduction or assault, leading to the decision to grant bail.

Issues: The main issues included the voluntariness of the victim's actions and the implications of her minor status on the bail decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of allegations of abduction or assault, along with the victim's statements, warranted the granting of bail, highlighting the importance of the victim's agency in the matter.

Result: Bail application allowed.

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 present petitioner out of her free will and volition. In her statements, she has clearly denied the allegation of any crime being inflicted upon her by the present petitioner.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, challan against him has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since the victim Mst.’M’ is a minor girl and therefore, even if she in her statements recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she had voluntarily went away with the present petitioner and travelled with him to various places then also, the petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefit of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that while the victim Mst.’M’ was in the company of the petitioner, she became pregnant and therefore, she also had to file an application before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1888/2025, seeking permission for termination of pregnancy. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that during the medical examination of the victim Mst.’M’, her pregnancy was found more than 31 weeks old and therefore, the Court refused to issue directions for termination of the pregnancy. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the victim Mst.’M’ in her statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. stated that she was in mutual relationship with the present petitioner from the last more than one year; victim Mst.’M’ in her statements has further stated that she had left her father’s house on 20.12.2024 without informing anyone and went away with the present petitioner to Delhi where she stayed with him in a hotel. In the opinion of this Court, since the investigation against the petitioner who is aged about 22 years, has already been concluded and the victim Mst.’M’ in her statements recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has not levelled any allegation regarding the petitioner having abducted her or subjected her to forcible sexual assault - rape, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Avinash S/o Surendra Chouhan arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.270/2024 registered at Police

Click Here to Read the rest of this document