Justice Kuldeep Mathur allowed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for petitioner incarcerated over 1.5 years in a rape case, noting FIR delay, lack of injuries, and recorded statements mitigated flight risk.
Petitioner released on bail conditioned upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:20444]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1291/2024
Mahendra Ram S/o Baksha Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sova, P.s. Nokha, Dist. Bikaner. (At Present Lodged At Bikaner Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Mahendra Ram |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP |
| Mr. Suresh Khadav for complainant |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order
08/05/2024
This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.205/2022, registered at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, for the offences punishable under Sections 366 or 366/34, 341, 323 or 323/34, 376-D & 506 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, on 09.05.2022 the prosecutrix- complainant was asked by her brother to come to Village Ankhisar. The prosecutrix thereupon went to Navli Gate and took lift in a vehicle which was going to Ankhisar. At that time, 2 ladies and 6 men were sitting in the vehicle. After sometime,
[2024:RJ-JD:20444]
[CRLMB-1291/2024]
(2 of 4)
two men and two ladies alighted the vehicle on reaching to their destination. One of the persons sitting in the vehicle thereafter, punched the face of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was thereafter, forcibly taken to a nearby place where she was made to eat some food containing some intoxicants. As per the prosecutrix, the present petitioner and co-accused persons subjected her to forcible sexual assault- rape multiple times.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 10 days from the date of alleged incident. Initially, in the FIR, it was alleged that prosecutrix has been subjected in the sexual assault- rape by the four persons but later on during her testimony before the competent criminal court, prosecutrix changed her statements and stated that she was subjected to sexual assault- rape by the present petitioner and coaccused persons namely Megha Ram and Setha Ram.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegation of prosecutrix being subjected to sexual assualt- rape is absolutely incorrect. To substantiate this argument, attention of the Court was drawn towards the medical examination report of the prosecutrix dated 19.05.2022 prepared by the Medical Board constituted at S.D.M. Government District Hospital, Bikaner wherein, no external or internal injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel thus contended that the medical report does not support the version of the prosecution.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from last about 1 and 1/2 years. The statements of the material prosecution witnesses including
[2024:RJ-JD:20444]
[CRLMB-1291/2024]
(3 of 4)
the prosecutrix (PW.1) have already been recorded before the competent criminal court, therefore, now there is no apprehension of petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses in case, he is enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accusedpetitioner.
Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody from the last more than 1 year and 6 months. This Court also prima facie finds that though the prosecutrix has levelled serious allegation of sexual assault- rape against the present petitioner but she has not furnished any plausible explanation for delay in lodging of the FIR. It is also to be noticed that no internal or external injuries were found on the body on private parts of the prosecutrix by the Medical Board. This Court also prima facie finds that the statements of the material prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix (PW.1) have already been recorded before the competent criminal court and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses or fleeing 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.
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-1291/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:20444]
Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mahendra Ram S/o Baksha Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.205/2022, registered at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, 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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
34-himanshu/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after being in judicial custody for over one and a half years in a case alleging rape.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and absence of physical injuries in the medical report support granting bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Ram S/o Baksha Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
