SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 884

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
PREMARAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 930 / 2025



Advocates:
Ms. Geeta Panpaliya, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar, GA cum AAG, Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP

Bail granted due to victim's hostile testimony undermining prosecution's case and consideration of judicial custody duration.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376(3), 376-D - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 16/17 - Bail application - Petitioners arrested in connection with serious offences under IPC and POCSO Act - Victim's statements recorded in court do not support prosecution and she has turned hostile - Court considers duration of judicial custody and likelihood of conviction - Bail granted to petitioners subject to conditions. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 7)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail include the nature of the accusations, the strength of the evidence, and the potential duration of the trial - The court acknowledges the victim's hostile stance and the implications for the prosecution's case. (Paras 3, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were arrested under serious charges including sexual offences against a minor. The victim's court testimony contradicted the prosecution's case, leading to a consideration of bail.

Findings of Court:
The court found it appropriate to grant bail given the circumstances, particularly noting the victim's lack of support for the prosecution's case and the prolonged judicial custody of the petitioners.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners should be granted bail in light of the victim's changed testimony and the length of time they had been in custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the victim's hostile testimony significantly undermined the prosecution's case, justifying the granting of bail while also ensuring that the trial court remains unbiased by the bail decision.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order :

1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.96/2024 registered at Police Station Khinwsar, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 376(3), 376-D of IPC and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act.

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

3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the victim ‘R’ recorded before the competent criminal Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the victim ‘R’ during her Court statements has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile. It was submitted that since the victim ‘R’ during her Court statements has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile, the chance of the petitioners getting convicted in present case is very bleak.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the victim, during her Court statements has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Premaram S/o Shrawanram (2) Nemaram S/o Jarharam and Ramdev S/o Khojaram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.96/2024 registered at Police Station Khinwsar, District Nagaur and shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

7. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top