HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
OMPRAKASH @ KALU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.207/2023 registered at Police Station Badnor, Dist. Beawar, for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(n)of IPC and Sections 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Prosecution’s case in brief is that the petitioner forcibly abducted and committed rape repeatedly on the victim- ‘P’ who is aged about 17 years.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is aged about 22 years is in judicial custody. Learned counsel submitted that the victim- ‘P’ on 20.09.2023 voluntarily went away with the present petitioner. The father of the victim- ‘P’ thereafter lodged the present FIR. Pursuant to the present FIR, when the victim- ‘P’ was discovered by the Investigating Agency she has roped the petitioner in a false criminal case by stating that on the date of the alleged incident, she was forcibly abducted by the petitioner on a motorbike and thereafter, he had repeatedly committed rape upon her.
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 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.
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 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 determined that a minor's voluntary elopement with the accused, coupled with no evidence of coercion, justified granting bail despite serious charges.
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 risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, especially in lengthy trials.
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.
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.