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.

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 aged about 25 years, is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the victim- ‘S’ in her statements recorded before the competent criminal Court has maintained the allegation of she being subjected to forcible sexual assault- rape on multiple occasions by the petitioner under the threat of making her obscene videos and photographs viral. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. It was, thus, prayed that the present bail application may be dismissed.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and so also the material available in the case file, this Court prima facie finds that the engagement ceremony of the petitioner with the victim- ‘S’ was performed by their family members in the year 2021. This Court also prima facie finds that while the engagement of the petitioner and the victim-‘S’ was persisting, they entered into physical relationship.

In the prima facie opinion of this Court, since the statements of the victim- ‘S’ have already been recorded on 16.11.2024, therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing her or tampering with the evidence. This Court also prima facie finds that the learned Public Prosecurtor has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses of the case or 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.

Consequently, the present second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Mohd. Imran S/o Shri Yusuf Mohd., arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.279/2024, registered at Police Station Subash Nagar, District Bhilwara, 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 learned trial Court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.