HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
GANPAT RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
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. Lea
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence supporting allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing the context of prior relationships and lack of incriminating materials.
Bail granted under Section 483 BNS Act due to lack of evidence and previous compromise in similar allegations, emphasizing the need for fair trial considerations.
Bail may be granted despite serious allegations if contradictions exist in the prosecutrix's statements and evidence is insufficient to support the charges.
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.
Bail can be granted when the accused is in judicial custody, investigation is complete, and there is no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Bail can be granted when there is no apprehension of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and where the prosecution's case lacks sufficient material to support the allegations.
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 emphasized that prior acquaintance and lack of evidence of coercion justified granting bail, highlighting the importance of assessing risks of influencing witnesses.
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.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.