TANU KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the above bail applications arise out of the same FIR No.94/2011 registered at police station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(G), 342, 372, 373 and 120B IPC, they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The accused petitioners had moved an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Court which came to be dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry matters, Jaipur city, Jaipur, by the impugned order on 28th January, 2012. The learned court below had decided the bail applications of the accused petitioners after considering the statement of the prosecutrix Rekha Kanwar under section 164 Cr.P.C. It is to be noted that in the instant case the said statement of the prosecutrix Rekha Kanwar came to be recorded on 26th March, 2011 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. Thereafter, another statement on 20th December, 2011 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

(3.) While assailing the impugned order passed by the learned court below on 28th January, 2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioners from the material on record, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix Rekha Kanwar recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate on 26.3.2011. Further, he has submitted that a bare perusal of the first information report goes to show that there is no accusation against the petitioner in respect of the offence under section 376 IPC. He has also submitted that a perusal of the first statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. goes to show that she had gone, on her own, with Mohar Singh and willingly solemnized the marriage with him. It has been submitted that the second statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 20.12.2011 is illegal and there was no just reason for having recorded the same before another Magistrate. Therefore, it has been submitted that the accused petitioners, who are in custody, be enlarged on bail.