PRASHANT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report being Part A C.R. No.11191066220143 of 2022 registered with Vasna Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Ss. 376(2)(N) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, under Ss. 3(A) , 4 , 5(L) , 6 and 18 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Ss. 3(2)(5) , (5-A), 3(1)(W)(i) and 3(1)(W)(i) and 3(1)(W)(ii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the victim and the applicant herein are staying in the same neighborhood and the allegations are that they were knowing each other for about 3 years. It is alleged that the accused had given a mobile phone to the victim to communicate with him but as per the submission of learned Advocate for the applicant, no mobile has been discovered and no evidence in the form of CDR has surfaced to even suggest the communication between the applicant and the victim. The allegations are also to the effect that the applicant was demanding money from the victim and also the gold ornaments from the victim's house. It is submitted by learned Advocate for the applicant that as per the complaint in the month of February 2021, the victim girl had stolen the gold ornaments from the safe of her house and it is alleged that the victim girl had given the applicant her gold chain after calling him near the shop of one - Dinesh. It is alleged that after one month again, the victim had given the applicant two gold finger rings and further, when on a communication through the mobile phone, the victim had given the applicant another two gold finger rings by calling the applicant near the temple of Goddess Jogni Mata. It is submitted that with regard to the allegations of ornaments being taken by the applicant, there is nothing on record by way of statement of witnesses to suggest that the ornaments were handed over by the victim to the applicant or in turn the applicant had sold these ornaments to some other person. It is also submitted that in absence of any evidence on record qua the CDR of the mobile calls as also the evidence of the gold ornaments taken away from the house and being handed over to the applicant, the subject First Information Report becomes doubtful.

(3.) It is also submitted by learned Advocate for the applicant that it is highly improbable that continuously the victim was stealing the ornaments from her house for about 3-4 times as alleged and the family members of the victim could not find out the said fact. Further, qua the allegations of forcible sexual assault by the applicant on the victim, it is submitted that these allegations were leveled only after the allegations of handing over of the gold ornaments. Thereafter, it is alleged that the applicant took the victim in an Eeco Car, and in the parking lot of Vaishali Township, the applicant sexually assaulted the victim and also demanded gold ornaments. It is also alleged that the applicant had assured the victim of divorcing his wife and marrying her. It is also submitted by learned Advocate for the applicant that the ownership of the Eeco Car is not established nor the allegation of taking victim to a hotel and/or committing the offence or also committing the offence in the Eeco Car, having knowledge of the fact that the victim belonged the category of Scheduled Caste. Learned Advocate for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the Affidavit of the wife of the applicant, which has been produced on record. The applicant's wife in her Affidavit has raised serious doubt about the contents of the First Information Report and has also further stated that one of the relatives of the victim is working in the Police Department and as per the information of the wife, the victim was having a relation with the brother of the said police personnel and to hide this fact, the present First Information Report has been filed with an ulterior motive. It is also submitted that as noted in the Affidavit, no documentary proof of evidence has been produced the support the allegations made in the First Information Report and the entries in the Register of Hotel Vrindavan do not support the allegations made in the First Information Report. It was, therefore, prayed that the present application may be allowed and the applicant herein may be released on regular bail.