Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2741 (RAJ)

Vimla Devi v. State

2019-10-23

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 2. The appellant has been arrested in FIR No. 130/2019 of Police Station Sadar, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379, 384, 120-B of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3 (2)(VA) of SC/ST Act. She has preferred this crimal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that allegation against the appellant of committing theft on the petrol pump of the complainant is absolutely false. It is submitted that the appellant and her husband were working on agriculture land adjacent to the land of complainant and there was some altercation between employees of petrol pump and the appellant. It is submitted that appellant has not committed theft on the petrol pump of the complainant and the said allegation has falsely been levelled against her. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the complainant had committed rape upon the appellant on 17.06.2019 and in relation to that she lodged an FIR against the complainant on 27.06.2019 and in counter to that, the complainant has lodged this false FIR against the appellant on 29.06.2019. It is submitted that appellant is a lady and is in jail since long, therefore, she may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the criminal appeal and submitted that this Court vide order dated 26.09.2019 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant seeking bail as counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal preferred on behalf of her. It is submitted that after rejection of the criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant on 26.09.2019, no substantial change has taken place, therefore, appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is noticed that on 27.06.2019, the appellant lodged an FIR against the complainant alleging that on 17.06.2019 in the night, the complainant came to her house and sexually assaulted her. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is noticed that on 27.06.2019, the appellant lodged an FIR against the complainant alleging that on 17.06.2019 in the night, the complainant came to her house and sexually assaulted her. The police after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR against the complainant filed negative final report in the matter while observing that as the appellant had committed theft on the petrol pump of the complainant and when the complainant confronted her, she threatened him that he would be implicated in a false case. The police after taking into consideration the location of the complainant on the day of incident and after taking into consideration the CCTV footage have concluded that allegations levelled by the appellant in the FIR against the complainant are absolutely false. 7. The trial court while rejecting the bail application of the appellant has taken into consideration the fact that in the CCTV footage, the appellant is seen stealing the plastic pipes from the petrol pump of the complainant. 8. It is true that allegation against the appellant is only to the effect that she committed theft on the petrol pump of the complainant and in a normal course, an accused of theft is entitled to be enlarged on bail but the facts of this case are very glaring, wherein the appellant has first committed theft in the premises belonging to the complainant and when she was confronted, she lodged a false FIR alleging that the complainant had committed rape upon her. The complaint regarding rape is always treated as a heinous crime and if a lady files a false complaint against an innocent person, then it cannot be taken lightly. Otherwise also, after rejection of the first bail application of the appellant by this Court, no substantial change has taken place in the circumstances of the case. 9. Hence, I am not inclined to grant criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act. 10. However, the appellant will be at liberty to file fresh bail application before the trail court after filing of the chargesheet.