Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 572 (RAJ)

Arvind v. State of Rajasthan

2016-04-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on the record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.92/2015, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Pratapgarh for the offences under Sections 458 & 376 of the IPC, Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations as set out against the petitioner in the charge-sheet are totally false and concocted. The petitioner had earlier, lodged an FIR against the father of the complainant and being enraged thereby, the FIR was got registered against the petitioner with totally false allegations after more than one month of the alleged incident through a private complaint. Drawing the Court's attention to the statement of Mst. 'K' recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., learned counsel contends that the victim, did not allege that the petitioner subjected her to rape. All that is stated by her in the statement is that the petitioner fell on top of her. He thus prays that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. However, he too candidly concedes that the FIR was filed after significant delay. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. Did not specifically state that the petitioner subjected her to rape. Any comment on the veracity of the statements of the prosecution witnesses at this stage is likely to prejudice the prosecution case at the trial. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances available on the record, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 5. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances available on the record, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Arvind S/o Shri Parvatn Singh Bariya arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No.92/2015, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Pratapgarh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal 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 that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.