The court denied bail based on the gravity of allegations and the potential influence on witnesses, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.

Order :

1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.116/2024 registered at Police Station Ghatol, Dist. Banswara, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354 B and 376 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, on 29.06.2024, the prosecutrix submitted a written report before the SHO of Police Station Ghatol alleging inter alia that on 28.06.2024, the petitioner on a pretext of giving labour work asked her to clean the fodder in his field for a sum of Rs.300/-. Thereafter, he took the prosecutrix to his field and subjected her to forcible sexual assault-rape.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that since statements of prosecutrix and other material prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the competent criminal court, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing them, in case he is enlarged on bail.

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

5. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application. He submitted that the prosecutrix (P.W.-01), in her Court statements has levelled specific allegation of subjecting her to forcible sexual assault/rape against the present petitioner. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, this bail application deserves to be rejected straight away.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the competent criminal court as P.W.-01, this Court prima facie finds that specific allegation of subjecting the prosecutrix to sexual assault has been levelled against the petitioner by the prosecutrix in her Court statements. This Court also prima facie finds that statements of other material prosecution witnesses i.e her father (P.W.-03) and her sister (P.W.-02) have been recorded before the competent criminal court. Therefore, looking to the gravity of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Consequently, the present bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) on behalf of the petitioner is dismissed. However, looking to the fact that statements of almost all the material prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial pending against the present petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of this Order.

9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are strictly for adjudication of the present bail application, and the trial Court shall not get prejudiced from the same.