Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1227 (RAJ)

Mekaram S/o Kaasabram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-05-02

FARJAND ALI

body2025
ORDER : 1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant fourth bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 23/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Mahila Thana 3. District Jodhpur City West 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 498-A. 323 and 376 of the IPC 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned order 03.02.2025 2. On earlier three occasions, bail applications being SBCRLMB No.1913/2024, 4491/2024 & 15708/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 27.02.2024, 18.04.2024 & 18.12.2024, at the time of dismissing the third bail application a liberty was given to him to renew the prayer for bail after statement of the victim is recorded in the trial Court, which has now been examined hence, the instant bail application. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record revealing that the victim was married with the petitioner and after consummation, they spent marital status for around two years. The marriage was arranged by the victim's parents, while she was a minor, and she was subsequently sent to her matrimonial home. I have minutely gone through her statement recorded in the trial wherefrom, it is revealing that a large procession and public function was organized by the victim’s parents, indicating social acceptance of the marriage. The rift between the petitioner and victim seems to have arisen due to undisclosed personal issues, not solely due to the petitioner’s actions. I have minutely gone through her statement recorded in the trial wherefrom, it is revealing that a large procession and public function was organized by the victim’s parents, indicating social acceptance of the marriage. The rift between the petitioner and victim seems to have arisen due to undisclosed personal issues, not solely due to the petitioner’s actions. This Court is not recognizing marriage of the victim with the petitioner in a legal manner, but the fact mentioned above cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that the petitioner alone was responsible for all the things happened. The age of the victim is also a serious question which is to be evaluated and adjudicated by the trial court, after taking entire evidence on record. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, this Court deems it suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 8. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Criminal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.