BACCHU @ BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the Challan papers.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Applicant submits that neither the Petitioner has been named in the FIR filed by the husband of the prosecutrix, nor he has been named in the statements recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure More so, after the arrest of the Petitioner he was subjected to test identification by the prosecutrix, however, she failed to identify him. That apart, there is no evidence to connect the Petitioner with the alleged crime.

(3.) HAVING considered the totality of facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that the Petitioner has not been identified by the prosecutrix in the identification parade, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the accused Applicant, and the present bail application preferred by the Applicant under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure deserves acceptance.