HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MOHD. IMRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.279/2024, registered at Police Station Subash Nagar, District Bhilwara for offence under Section 343 , 354 , 376(2)(n), 376-D and 506 of IPC ; Sections 5(l)/6, 11/12 and 16/17 of POCSO Act ; and Sections 66E , 67 & 67A of the Information Technology Act .
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, the challan papers and so also the statements of the victim- ‘S’ recorded before the competent criminal Court as PW.1, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the engagement ceremony of the petitioner with the victim- ‘S’ was performed by their family members in the year 2021. While the victim- ‘S’ was engaged with the present petitioner, she entered into physical relationship with him out of her own free will and volition. Learned counsel submitted that on relations between them turning sour, the petitioner has been roped in a false case by the victim- ‘S’.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is ag
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to lack of evidence tampering risk and prolonged judicial custody, despite serious allegations against the petitioner.
Bail can be granted when there is no risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, especially in lengthy trials.
Bail may be granted when the prosecution fails to provide substantial evidence, and there is no apprehension of tampering with witnesses or fleeing from justice.
The court denied bail based on the gravity of allegations and the potential influence on witnesses, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.
The court granted bail based on the lack of supporting evidence from key witnesses, significantly reducing the likelihood of conviction.
The court emphasized that prior acquaintance and lack of evidence of coercion justified granting bail, highlighting the importance of assessing risks of influencing witnesses.
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.
Delay in lodging FIR without plausible explanation undermines prosecution's credibility, justifying bail.
Bail can be granted when there is no apprehension of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and where the prosecution's case lacks sufficient material to support the allegations.
A delay in filing an FIR and lack of injuries can raise doubts about the credibility of allegations, justifying the grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.