GOVIND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.101/2022 of Police Station Salumber, District Udaipur for the offence punishable under Ss. 363, 366-A, 376(3), 376(2)(N) of IPC R/w Sec. 5/6 of POCSO Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR in this case has been lodged after a delay of one month and the said delay has not at all been explained by the complainant. Counsel further submits that victim specifically stated that one Ranjeet committed rape with her, whereas the name of the present petitioner is Govind and no identification parade was done by the Police in this case. Furthermore, in the school certificate as well as admission form of the victim, there are variations in the age of victim. Counsel further stated that victim has been examined before the Court as PW-1 and there are material contradictions, improvements and omissions in her statement. The petitioner is in the judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Ranjeet and the present petitioner Govind are the same person and when notice under Sec. 133 of Motor Vehicle Act was given to the brother of the petitioner, in reply he clearly mentioned that motor cycle was being driven by the petitioner and he also admitted that Ranjeet and Govind are one and the same person, therefore, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner.