Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1221 (RAJ)

Mehboob v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-04-24

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No. 228/2018 of Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 376(2)(i), 376(D), 376(2), 506, 342 and 34 of IPC and Section 5(G)(L)/6 of POCSO Act. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after rejection of the first bail application of the petitioners, statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial court, wherein, she has specifically stated that she is not able to identify those persons who had sexually assaulted her. It is submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement has specifically stated that the petitioners had not sexually assaulted her. It is submitted that mother, brother and sister of the prosecutrix have also specifically stated in their court statement that they are not aware that who had sexually assaulted the proseuctrix. It is also submitted that taking into consideration the statements of the prosecutrix and her relatives, it is clear that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and on the basis of the prosecution evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court till date, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioners. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the prosecutrix has not named the accused persons in her statement but she has admitted her signature on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and also stated that she told everything to the Magistrate regarding the incident. It is also submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has named the petitioner. It is also submitted that trial against the petitioners is going on and several important prosecution witnesses are to be examined. It is also submitted that taking into consideration the fact that age of the prosecutrix was around fifteen years at the time of incident, no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage. 5. It is also submitted that trial against the petitioners is going on and several important prosecution witnesses are to be examined. It is also submitted that taking into consideration the fact that age of the prosecutrix was around fifteen years at the time of incident, no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, these bail applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are rejected.