Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 805 (RAJ)

Lokesh Hada @ Gillu Bana v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-01

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2016
ORDER Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Present application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of a regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No. 488/2015, registered at Police Station Anantpura, Kota City, District Kota, for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has read the statement of the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix in her statement has stated that she knew the accused for the last two years. The accused had provided her mobile phone. On 27.11.2015, the accused came to the coaching centre of the prosecutrix and told her that he is having her video and by giving this threat, he took her on his motorcycle. They reached Patwa, where they sold jewellery and then came to Tonk; from Tonk to Jaipur; from Jaipur they came to Delhi, where the accused committed wrong act with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, they came to Jaipur. Thereafter, the accused took the prosecutrix from Jaipur to Bikaner, Ajmer and Indore. At Indore, they stayed in hotel. In hotel, accused established physical relationship for 2-3 times. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no video has been recovered from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the prosecutrix had eloped with the petitioner and had accompanied him to various places. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecutrix is aged 16 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has controverted this fact and has urged that the age of the prosecutrix is more than 18 years. 5. Considering that the age of the prosecutrix is bordering 18 years, this Court is of the view that the age of the prosecutrix shall be determined during the course of the trial. However, taking into account the fact that the prosecutrix had visited various public places with the petitioner in public transport and had not made complaint to anybody, this Court is of the view that the continuous detention of the petitioner, as an under trial is not warranted. 6. Hence, the present bail application is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial, to the satisfaction of the trial court.