SANCHITA GUPTA @ SHILPI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 of the CrPC. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with CR Case No: 122/2013, P.S. Mahila Thana (West), Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 342, 376, 354A, 506, 509/34 of the IPC, Section 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for bail submitted that the petitioner is an unmarried girl. She joined Asa Ram Gurukul, Chhindwara (M.P.) only in the month of April, 2013. There is no allegation against her. The only evidence available with the Investigating Agency to connect the petitioner with the offence are the telephone calls between her, the co-accused of Shiva and Prakash, However, no text of the said conversation is available Hence, the said telephone calls between three of them cannot be taken into consideration. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Prahlad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan,2010 1 CrLR 380

(3.) Learned counsel further argued that as per the medical report, there was no sign of rape having been committed. The prosecutrix was not a minor. The allegations are only of attempt. Hence, no offence under Section 376/34 of the IPC or Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2.012 is made out against the petitioner. Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Siddhharam Sattlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011 1 SCC(Cri) 514 to contend that great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest and in cases where court is of considered view that accused has joined investigation and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided and anticipatory bail should be granted.