Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2230 (RAJ)

Ramaram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 230/2013, Police Station Rohat, for the offences under Section 376 I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the challan papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is a 40 years old lady. She accompanied the petitioner with her niece and went to a temple. There both of them consumed liquor and then had established consensual physical relations with each other. He submits that complaint of the alleged incident dated 8.5.2013 has been filed on 27.6.2013. He pointed out the statement of Miss Jeevan the niece of the complainant and submits that the child stated that the petitioner and the complainant both consumed liquor and then went behind the bushes. He also pointed out the statement of Ganesha Ram who stated that he saw the petitioner and the complainant consuming liquor near the temple. Learned counsel thus submits that apparently it is a case of consent which has been given a colour of alleged rape. He submits that challan has been filed and the petitioner is behind the bars since 18.9.2013. He thus prays that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced at the bar. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the challan papers. 6. The complainant in question has been filed after one month and 22 days of the incident. The prosecutrix aged 40 years voluntarily accompanied the petitioner to the temple. There both of them consumed liquor and thereafter the alleged act of rape is alleged to have been committed. The story as set up by the prosecutrix is contradicted by the depositions of Ganesha Ram, Miss Jeevan, Joga Ram and Ganpat. However, without commenting on the merits of the case this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 7. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. The story as set up by the prosecutrix is contradicted by the depositions of Ganesha Ram, Miss Jeevan, Joga Ram and Ganpat. However, without commenting on the merits of the case this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 7. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner, Rama Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 230/2013 P.S. Rohat shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of 40,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates hearing and as and when called upon to do so.Bail application allowed. *******