WING COMMANDER ANUNAKSHA NANDY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been implicated falsely. A totally false case has been lodged against the present petitioner. The incident is said to be of 29.2.2012 but the matter has not been reported to any authority and even the prosecutrix has not informed about the incident to his husband or other family members. Even after the incident, the prosecutrix was having usual relations with the present petitioner and the daughter of the prosecutrix has stated that two three days before 22.3.2012, her mother, the prosecutrix and Nandy uncle-the present petitioner and their spouses have went to see sand-dunes. The husband of the prosecutrix has came to know about the intimate relations of the present petitioner with the prosecutrix by tapping phone-calls which is also suggestive that the present petitioner and the prosecutrix were having intimate relations prior to the alleged incident. On the date of incident, it has been stated that the present petitioner, his wife and the prosecutrix drank together and the prosecutrix was in a high drunkard stage but the enquiry report of Army suggests that on the same night, 97 SMS messages have been exchanged between the prosecutrix and the present petitioner which does not support the statement of the prosecutrix that she was intoxicated on the night of the occurrence. On 22.3.2012 when the prosecutrix and her husband were going out station, the keys of the house and car were also handed over to the wife of the present petitioner and he has also instructed that car should be collected by the present petitioner which shows the harmonious relations between the parties even after the alleged incident. The call details between the prosecutrix and the present petitioner is also suggestive of the closeness of the two. Even after the alleged date of incident, the various phone calls have been exchanged between the two. The husband of the prosecutrix returned back from the tour on 6.3.2012. In spite of this fact, nothing has been narrated to him regarding the incident. First time on 21.4.2012, a verbal information has been given to AOC in which no allegation of rape on specific date has been alleged. Only it has been stated that the present petitioner is having physical relation with his wife. Thereafter on 11.6.2012 a written complaint has been filed by the husband of the prosecutrix. Nothing has been narrated in that report regarding incident of rape. It has been stated that his wife has been molested and the present petitioner tried to rape her. After detail enquiry, it has been concluded by the authorities that there is no evidence to support the allegation of rape. The husband of the prosecutrix has also stated to witness that his wife is having extra marital affairs with another officer and he also suggested that the present petitioner should do community service or pay money for charity which also suggests that no offence has been committed by the present petitioner. Broadly, the contention of the present petitioner is that he and the prosecutrix were having intimate relations which too were in the knowledge of their spouses. He never raped the prosecutrix and falsely a report has been made. The alleged offence is said to have been committed on 29.2.2012 and no fruitful purpose would be served by arresting him and looking to the conclusions of the court-martial the case is base-less, false and hence the present petitioner should be released on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant is that the present petitioner has misused the trust of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has specifically stated that she used to treat the present petitioner as elder brother but the present petitioner by misusing his position, has raped her. He was having faith in the authorities, hence he had not lodged the criminal report initially and enquiry has not been made properly. After the enquiry the present petitioner has not been exonerated fully but he has been found guilty of indecent advantages towards the prosecutrix and physical intimacy with her.