Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MOHD. SHAHJAD – 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.122/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Bikaner, Dist. Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 332(b) of BNS.
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 prosecutrix ‘Z’ recorded under Section 183 BNSS, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix ‘Z’ who is a mature woman aged about 26 years was having a longstanding mutual relationship with the present petitioner. However, on relations between them turning strained, the petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case.
4. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that about three months prior to the date of lodging of the FIR, the petitioner came to her house and made her consume a cold drink containing intoxicant substance whereupon, she fell unconscious and was subjected to forcible sexual assault/rape by the
Bail may be granted despite serious allegations if contradictions exist in the prosecutrix's statements and evidence is insufficient to support the charges.
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.
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.
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 ruled that mere pregnancy does not imply guilt of sexual assault, and the absence of risk factors justified granting bail.
The court denied bail based on the gravity of allegations and the potential influence on witnesses, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.
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.
The absence of recovered evidence and lack of risk of witness tampering justified granting bail in a case of alleged blackmail and sexual assault.
Bail may be granted when the prosecution fails to provide substantial evidence, and there is no apprehension of tampering with witnesses or fleeing from justice.
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
