Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2556 (RAJ)

Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-24

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No. 110/2011, registered at Police Station Asind, Distt. Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(XII) of the SC/ST Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the prosecutrix Mst. "S", who is the daughter of Bheru Lal had gone missing on 15.04.2011. The missing person report No. 4/2011 was registered at the Police Station Asind at the instance of Bheru Lal and the investigation on the said report was being done by one Chand Singh, Head Constable. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was called in connection with the said missing person report and was being tried to be implicated as an accused for abducting the girl. In the meantime, the girl Mst. "S" was recovered on 03.06.2011 and her statement was recorded in connection with the aforesaid missing person report, in which, she stated that she had gone voluntarily with Nand Lal, a person whom she knew from before. In the said statement, she has also stated that she entered into an agreement with Nand Lal at the court premises at Bhilwara and then went with Nand Lal to Shirdi as well as Vaishno Devi. She clearly admitted her consensual relations with Nand Lal but denied any allegation of physical contact. Accordingly, Bheru Lal submitted an application to the SHO, Police Station Asind on 3rd June, 2011 that he did not desire to pursue the missing person report about his daughter having gone missing. The affidavit of the prosecutrix was also submitted on that day, in which, she has sworn that nobody had abducted her. 3. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, the Investigating Officer namely Chand Singh started harassing the petitioner and also started demanding bribe from the petitioner, on which, the petitioner got him trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhilwara while taking bribe of Rs. 10,000/- on 6th June, 2011. It is submitted that thereafter the aforesaid Chand Singh instigated Bheru Lal to file a false report against the petitioner and Nand Lal, on which, Bheru Lal submitted a complaint against the petitioner and Nand Lal with the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for committing rape upon his daughter along with co-accused Nand Lal. 10,000/- on 6th June, 2011. It is submitted that thereafter the aforesaid Chand Singh instigated Bheru Lal to file a false report against the petitioner and Nand Lal, on which, Bheru Lal submitted a complaint against the petitioner and Nand Lal with the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for committing rape upon his daughter along with co-accused Nand Lal. It has been further submitted that it is totally on account of the pressure of the aforesaid Chand Singh that the present FIR has been registered and the petitioner is being sought to be arrested in this case. Learned counsel further submits that ex facie the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1 )(XII) of the SC/ST Act are not made out in the present case as it is not the case of the prosecutrix that the petitioner committed the act of rape upon the prosecutrix because she was a member of scheduled caste/tribe. 4. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has already appeared before the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Nand Lal was arrested in this case and he in his investigation has stated that he was having affair with the prosecutrix since long and that the petitioner had simply helped him to execute the documents of marriage with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, it is only co-accused Nand Lal, who had gone with the prosecutrix to various places and thus it is prayed there is no justification for the petitioners arrest in this case. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned as well as the case diaries of FIR No. 110/2011 and the FIR No. 210/2011, which has been registered against Chand Singh, the Investigating Officer for having taken bribe from the petitioner and have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar.In the investigation file of the A.C.B., the record of the missing person report is also annexed. In the said record, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 3rd June, 2011 is available, in which, she has stated about her consensual sexual relationship with Nand Lal but has not made any allegation whatsoever against the petitioner. In the said record, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 3rd June, 2011 is available, in which, she has stated about her consensual sexual relationship with Nand Lal but has not made any allegation whatsoever against the petitioner. A perusal of the investigation file of FIR No. 110/2011 also does not reveal that the petitioner has been seen in the company of the prosecutrix or Nand Lal at the places where the girl has been taken. There is no allegation of the prosecutrix that the offence as alleged in the FIR was committed with the object or with the intention that it was being committed because of her being a member of the scheduled caste/tribe. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the restriction of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply in the present case. The prosecutrix has been recovered from Maharashtra along with the co-accused Nand Lal. As has already been observed above that after the prosecutrix was recovered, she was examined on 3rd June, 2011 in connection with the missing person report and she has made no allegation against the petitioner in this statement. She as well as her father Bheru Lal have submitted affidavits stating that they did not have any grievance about the prosecutrix having been abducted.Accordingly, this court feels that there exist valid grounds for accepting the present bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 9. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Asind, Distt. Bhilwara in F.I.R. No. 110/2011 is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner - Rakesh, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Bail granted. *******