Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
REWA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.231/2022 registered at Police Station Sivana, Dist. Barmer, for the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376(3) of IPC and Sections 3(a)/4(2) of POCSO Act.
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 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, challan papers and the statements of the victim ‘R’ recorded before the competent criminal Court as PW-01, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statements of the victim ‘R’ clearly indicates that she was having an old acquaintance with the present petitioner. She went to Sirohi with the present petitioner but when they did not get any room or house to stay, she came back to her parents house. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of the victim ‘R’ are sufficient to indicate that it is not a case of commission of forcible abduction or commission of sexual assau
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 based on the victim's acknowledgment of a consensual relationship and lack of evidence tampering concerns, despite serious charges against the petitioner.
Bail can be granted when there is no risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, especially in lengthy trials.
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 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 due to insufficient evidence supporting allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing the context of prior relationships and lack of incriminating materials.
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.
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.
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
