Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1845 (RAJ)

Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2014-11-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The earlier bail application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for bail after examination of the prosecutrix at the trial, the instant third application for bail has been moved. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is a major girl. She established frequent physical relations with the petitioner over a period of ten months without any objection and resistance. He further submits that the so called indecent clipping or the prosecutrix which is alleged to have been recorded by the petitioner and thereafter uploaded on the internet is not available on the record of the trial Court as per noting made by the trial Court during the statement of the prosecutrix. He thus submits that it is a clear cut case of consensual physical relations between the two major persons and thus the petitioner who is in custody since 6.11.2012 deserves to be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the submissions and urged that the petitioner not only ravished the prosecutrix sexually against her wishes but thereafter recorded the indecent act in his mobile and uploaded the same on internet. Thus, he submits that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the material on record. 5. After going through the evidence of the prosecutrix recorded on oath, it is evident that she admitted that the accused contacted physical relations with her on numerous occasions over a period of ten months without any resistance from her side whatsoever. The prosecutrix is a major girl. The counsel for the accused requested the trial Court to provide the so called C.D. of the indecent clipping but the learned Public Prosecutor appearing in the trial Court expressed that no such C.D. is available on the file. It is alleged that a mobile phone and a memory card having the indecent clipping were seized during investigation but the I.O. seems not to have taken trouble of deciphering the same during investigation. Be that as it may. 6. It is alleged that a mobile phone and a memory card having the indecent clipping were seized during investigation but the I.O. seems not to have taken trouble of deciphering the same during investigation. Be that as it may. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the prolonged period of custody suffered by the petitioner but 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, Prakash arrested in connection with No.181/2012 P.S. Rani shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a person bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before the Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.