YASHRAJ BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for second anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 365/2020 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Sec. (s) 376(2)(n), 323, 341 & 384 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the first bail application by this Court vide its order dtd. 13/9/2021, there are certain subsequent developments which have material bearing on the issue entitling him to renew his prayer for pre-arrest bail.

(3.) He submits that FIR in the instant case itself was not maintainable as it was lodged on 17/7/2020 whereas, the prosecutrix had already filed a complaint on 18/2/2020 in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan-I with similar allegations which came to be withdrawn by her on 17/7/2021 only after cognizance was already taken therein. He submits that from the statement of Shri Balveer Singh son of Shri Ratan Singh, an employee with the Hotel Moti Mahal, Pushkar, District Ajmer, recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the prosecutrix has visited the hotel along with the petitioner on 27/2/2020 and has stayed there for a day; i.e., after filing the complaint on 18/2/2020. He submits that this fact itself demolishes the entire prosecution story. Learned counsel, drawing attention of this Court towards the charge-sheet No.109/2021 dtd. 7/5/2021 filed against Shri Kailash Chand Bohra in FIR No.80/2021 lodged by the prosecutrix, submitted that it reveals that the investigation done by Shri Kailash Chand Bohra in the FIR lodged against the petitioner was tainted and unfair. Referring to the status report dtd. 25/10/2021 submitted by the Assistant Police Commissioner Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (East) in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, learned counsel submitted that it unequivocally states that the petitioner has co-operated during the course of investigation. He submitted that in two more FIRs i.e., FIR No.68/2021 dtd. 25/1/2021 and FIR No.123/2021 dtd. 17/2/2021 lodged by the prosecutrix against him, the police after thorough investigation submitted negative final report. He would further submit that from a perusal of the contents of charge sheet filed against him, it is apparent that it was a case of consensual sex in between him and the prosecutrix and no offence is made out. He, therefore, prays for benefit of pre-arrest bail. To buttress his submission that the petitioner is entitled to renew the prayer for pre-arrest bail, learned counsel relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the cases of Rani Dudeja v. State of Harayana 2017 13 SCC 555, Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1978 1 SCC 579, Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan 2010 1 SCC 684, Bharat Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2003 8 SCC 77, Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2016 1 SCC 152 and Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab 1980 2 SCC 565 and a judgment of full Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2005 SCC OnLine Raj 319.