The court emphasized that prior acquaintance and lack of evidence of coercion justified granting bail, highlighting the importance of assessing risks of influencing witnesses.

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 assault/rape upon her. But it is a case wherein the victim ‘R’ has falsely implicated the petitioner in a criminal case when their relations turned sour.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the statements of the victim ‘R’ have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court and, therefore, now there is no apprehension of petitioner influencing her or tampering with the evidence of the case. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the victim ‘R’ in her cross-examination has admitted that she was having old acquaintance with the present petitioner and used to meet him on regular basis. She has further admitted that while she was in the company of the present petitioner at Sirohi, she despite having ample opportunities did not disclose the factum of she being abducted or subjected to sexual assault/rape by the present petitioner to anyone. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, since the statements of the victim ‘R’ have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court, now there is no apprehension of victim being influenced the present petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has also not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the remaining material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused- petitioner Rewa Ram S/o Devaram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.231/2022 registered at Police Station Sivana, Dist. Barmer, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

8. 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.