Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3034 (RAJ)

Moti Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-12-16

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.42/2018, Police Station- Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376-D of IPC and section 5 (G)/6 of POCSO Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of co-accused Tela Ram @ Mukesh who has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 01.11.2019 in S.B.Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No.13319/2019 (Tela Ram @ Mukesh V/ s State). It is contended that the present petitioner has not used any force against the prosecutrix and even the petitioner was not known to the prosecutrix. Everything was done with the consent of the prosecutrix. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the contentions of the petitioner submits that the case of Tela Ram @ Mukesh is clearly distinguishable from the case of the present petitioner as it has been recorded in the order dated 01.11.2019 that Tela Ram @ Mukesh was having relationship with the prosecutrix and several love letters were also exchanged between the two. The prosecutrix and Tela Ram @ Mukesh were in relationship and she went with Tela Ram @ Mukesh of her own free will, whereas it is not so with petitioner. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar, this court is of the view that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Tela Ram @ Mukesh as the present petitioner committed the offences alleged against him by taking the prosecutrix to a remote place in an agricultural field against her free will. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show or suggest that the present petitioner was having any kind of relationship with the prosecutrix. In her statement recorded before the trial court, the prosecutrix has clearly stated that the petitioner had committed rape on her against her free will. The detailed statement of PW1 clearly indicates that the offences alleged against the petitioner on the face of it are made out. 6. In her statement recorded before the trial court, the prosecutrix has clearly stated that the petitioner had committed rape on her against her free will. The detailed statement of PW1 clearly indicates that the offences alleged against the petitioner on the face of it are made out. 6. 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 petitioner at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed at this stage.