Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, J
RAJULAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
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.151/2024 registered at Police Station Diver, District Rajsamand, for the offences under Sections 64(1) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
2. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim ‘M’ who is aged about 17 years and 11 months has falsely roped the present petitioner in a criminal case. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 01.08.2024, the victim ‘M’ voluntarily travelled with the present petitioner using public transportation to Udaipur and took a room on rent. She thereupon entered into consensual relationship with the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that though as per the prosecution, the petitioner had captured her obscene videos and photographs and threatened her to make the same viral on social media platform but no such videos and photographs of the victim have been recovered by the investigating agency. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner has
The court granted bail due to the lack of evidence against the petitioner and the consensual nature of the relationship with the victim, emphasizing no risk of influencing witnesses.
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.
The court found prima facie merit in the claim of a mutual relationship between the petitioner and the victim, allowing bail due to completed investigation and time served in custody.
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.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence supporting allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing the context of prior relationships and lack of incriminating materials.
The court granted bail based on the duration of custody and the fact that co-accused had been released, emphasizing the need to consider the nature of allegations.
The court emphasized that prior acquaintance and lack of evidence of coercion justified granting bail, highlighting the importance of assessing risks of influencing witnesses.
Bail may be granted despite serious allegations if contradictions exist in the prosecutrix's statements and evidence is insufficient to support the 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
