Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2033 (RAJ)

Bheru Lal Kumhar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-10-30

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. It has been apprised to this Court by the learned public prosecutor that the complainant/victim party has been informed. 2. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 260/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Mandalgarh 3. District Bhilwara 4. Offences alleged in the FIR S. 376(2)(n) & 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned order 04.09.2023 3. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix are that she was going to Joganiya Mata on her own when the appellant sedated her with an ice cream on the bus journey and took her to multiple places and raped her. 4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. The prosecutrix was a consenting party and it is not possible for anyone to take a mature girl to several public places without her consent. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-appellant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 5. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 6. Have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The prosecutrix was taken to numerous public places where she had ample opportunity to raise an alarm and it is worth pondering upon as to why she did not raise an alarm or seek help from anyone. As per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it is revealing that after she was allegedly raped by the appellant, she went with him to other public places and stayed with him at the railway station. As per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it is revealing that after she was allegedly raped by the appellant, she went with him to other public places and stayed with him at the railway station. In view of the above, the plea of consent cannot be overlooked at this stage though the same shall be adjudged after appreciation of evidence during trial. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the appellant in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and shall not influence the trial judge in any manner whatsoever while presiding over this matter. 8. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant - Bheru Lal Kumhar S/o Ladu Lal Kumhar arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.