Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
PRAVEEN MAHUNYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
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.68/2024, registered at Police Station Kushalgarh, District Banswara, for offences under Sections 366, 344 and 376(2)(n) of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the statements of the victim- ‘A’ recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 26.07.2023, the victim- ‘A’ voluntarily eloped with the present petitioner and remained in his company for about 3 months.
4. Learned counsel submitted that when the relations between the parties turned sour, the victim- ‘A’ has lodged an FIR about 7 months after the alleged incident alleging inter alia that on 26.07.2023, she was forcibly abducted by the petitioner and her family members. It has further been alleged that the petitioner has committed forcible sexual assault- rape upon her when she was forcibly kept by the petitioner in his custody.
5. Learned counsel submitted that no plausible explanation for lodging
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.
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 considering the relationship between the accused and victim, lack of criminal antecedents, and absence of evidence indicating risk of tampering or flight.
Bail can be granted when there is no risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, especially in lengthy trials.
The court granted bail due to contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, suggesting possible false allegations, and no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.
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.
Delay in lodging FIR without plausible explanation undermines prosecution's credibility, justifying bail.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when the accused is in custody for an extended period, and there is no risk of influencing witnesses, especially when a co-accused has been granted ba....
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.
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
