The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence supporting allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing the context of prior relationships and lack of incriminating materials.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

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.443/2024 registered at Police Station Banar, Jodhpur City East for the offences under Sections 64(1), 87, 308(2) and 61(2) (b) of BNS.

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was having mutual relationship with the prosecutrix. However, on relations between them turning strained, she has roped the petitioner in a false criminal case.

4. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to filing of the present FIR, the father of the prosecutrix had also lodged an FIR dated 24.10.2024 stating inter-alia that his daughter i.e. the prosecutrix has ran away from his house with the present petitioner by stealing gold and silver ornaments. The investigating agency pursuant to the FIR lodged by her father, arrested her and the present petitioner and sent them to judicial custody. Later on, both were enlarged on bail by the competent criminal court.

5. Learned counsel submitted that only after few days of being released on bail, the mother of the prosecutrix has lodged the present FIR against the petitioner alleging inter alia that the petitioner was physically exploiting the prosecutrix by threatening to circulate her obscene videos and photographs.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the present FIR are far from truth. Drawing attention of the Court towards various documents and the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS, learned counsel submitted that on 24.10.2024, the prosecutrix went away with the present petitioner from her parent’s house in his white coloured swift car and travelled with him to various places. While the prosecutrix was in the company of the petitioner, she also solemnized marriage with him.

7. Learned counsel submitted that sufficient material is available on record to indicate that the prosecutrix despite having ample opportunities, did not disclose the factum of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to sexual assault by the present petitioner. No obscene videos or photographs allegedly captured by the petitioner to blackmail/threaten the prosecutrix have been recovered by the investigating agency. The petitioner has not even been charge-sheeted for the offences under Information Technology Act.

8. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

10. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that prior to filing of the present FIR, the father of the prosecutrix had lodged an FIR alleging inter alia that his daughter i.e. the prosecutrix ran away with the present petitioner after stealing gold and silver ornaments from his house. This Court also prima facie finds that while the prosecutrix was in the company of the present petitioner, she did not inform anyone about the factum of she being abducted or subjected to forcible sexual assault by the present petitioner; no obscene videos and photographs have been recovered by the investigating agency from the petitioner; the petitioner has not even been charge-sheeted for the offence under Information Technology Act. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

11. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ganpat Ram S/o Durga Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.443/2024 registere