Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 367 (RAJ)

Aslam v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P. P.

2022-02-04

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.653/2021, registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Sikar for the offence(s) under Sections 376 (2)(n) & 376-D IPC and Sections 5l, 6 & 5g of of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case registered under Sections 376 (2)(n) & 376-D IPC and Sections 5l, 6 & 5g POCSO Act, 2012. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix has got recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and therein, the prosecutrix has admitted that she and the present petitioner were known to each other for last several years and she got married with him with the consent of her parents. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the said statement further reveals that the petitioner and the prosecutrix stayed together, she had given birth to a child and no illicit relation was established by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the said statement further shows that the prosecutrix wants to stay with the present petitioner, however, on account of some dispute with regard to demand of money by father of the prosecutrix, the present case has been lodged against the petitioner and mother of the prosecutrix. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only in order to bring the case under POCSO Act, the DOB of the prosecutrix has been shown as 20.03.2005' and as such, the prosecutrix is said to be less than 18 years of age, however, the same will be finally decided during the course of trial. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Complainant have opposed the present bail application. 9. Learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that the prosecutrix is a minor girl and even consent by the prosecutrix, to stay with the present petitioner, is not legal and the petitioner has committed rape on her and the prosecutrix has also gave birth to a child by such illicit relation. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 11. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 11. This Court notices the following features in the present case, which are read as under :- (i) The statement of the prosecutrix clearly reveals that she knew the petitioner for last several years, she stayed with the present petitioner after marriage and gave birth to a child. (ii) The statement further reveals that the prosecutrix wants to stay with the present petitioner but due to denial of marriage by her father, the present FIR was lodged. (iii) The age of the prosecutrix will be decided finally during trial and petitioner is also a young boy of 21 years of age. (iv) The Police has completed the investigation and the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. 12. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. 13. Accordingly, the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.