Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3037 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. State

2019-12-16

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.04/2017 of Police Station Mandore District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 384, 450 IPC and Section 5(L)/6 POCSO Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner, statements of step brother of the prosecutrix Anwar and Imran have been recorded before the trial court. It is submitted that the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother have already been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation of sexual assault against the petitioner has been levelled after seven months of the alleged incident. It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses alleged that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the prosecutrix by threatening her to make her intimate video clips viral, which he prepared while sexually assaulting the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the police have not collected any such video clips and prosecution witnesses in their statements have also admitted that no such video clips have been presented before the Court during the course of recording of their statements. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, some disputes between the petitioner and the mother of the prosecutrix, who is her neighbour are going on from quite some time and pursuant to that, when on 02.01.2017, the petitioner and his wife went to the house of the mother of the prosecutrix, they lodged this false complaint alleging that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the prosecutrix around seven months ago. It is submitted that the prosecutrix in her statements has also levelled allegation of this effect that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her with the aid of his wife Pooja, however, the police have not filed charge-sheet against Pooja and have concluded that her involvement in the commission of crime is not made out. It is submitted that the prosecutrix has stated that on 28.05.2016, Pooja offered her some drink and after consuming the same, she became unconscious and at that time, the petitioner had sexually assaulted her. It is argued that the said story narrated by the prosecutrix is negated with the fact that the police have not found involvement of Pooja in commission of crime. It is argued that the said story narrated by the prosecutrix is negated with the fact that the police have not found involvement of Pooja in commission of crime. It is submitted that though the prosecutrix has further alleged that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her after 28.05.2016 on several occasions but no specific date and time have been mentioned by her. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 03.01.2017 and trial of the case will take time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses completed before the trial court till date and taking into consideration the fact that the police have not found any case against the wife of the petitioner, against whom the allegation of helping the petitioner in committing sexual assault upon the prosecutrix on 28.05.2016 is levelled, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Om Prakash S/o Nathu Ram, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.04/2017 of Police Station Mandore District Jodhpur provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.