The court granted bail based on the absence of criminal antecedents and completion of investigation, emphasizing the need to balance the seriousness of allegations against the circumstances of the case.

Order

17/01/2025 This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.243/2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Dist. Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 64(1), 332(b), 123, 351(3) and 115(2) of BNS.

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

Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix ‘S’, who is a mature married woman was having a mutual relationship with the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecutrix, on the date of the alleged incident, when she was alone in the house, the petitioner came to meet her and made her drink cold drink containing intoxicant substance. Thereupon, the prosecutrix became unconscious and she was subjected to forcible sexual assault/rape by the petitioner. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner had also captured her obscene videos and photographs.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no obscene photos and videos of the prosecutrix allegedly inflicted by the petitioner have been recovered by the investigating agency and the petitioner has not even been charge-sheeted under Information Technology Act, 2000. It was submitted that sufficient material is available on record to prima facie indicate that the prosecutrix was having a consensual relationship with the present petitioner, however, on relations between them turning strained, the petitioner, who is aged about 19 years, has been roped in a false criminal case.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan has already been filed before the competent criminal Court and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, having perused the FIR so also the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, this Court prima facie finds that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were having a mutual relationship and on relations between them turning strained, the petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case, cannot be brushed aside at this stage. This Court also prima facie finds that the investigation against the petitioner has already been completed; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the remaining material prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice or tampering with the evidence, 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.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Nadeem Akram S/o Shokat Ali arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.243/2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Dist. Hanumangarh, 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.

It is however, made clear that findin