MAHENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioners Mahendra, Lalaram and Kamal, have filed this second anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 262/2012 registered at Police Station, Badoda Mev, District Alwar for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 5(2)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The First Bail Application moved by the accused petitioners was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.8.2013 and since the Hon'ble Judge Presiding the Co-ordinate Bench, is sitting at Jodhpur, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in another matter moved by the Deputy Registrar of this Court passed orders for listing such bail applications before the Regular Bench hearing such matters. Hence this matter is being heard today on the second anticipatory bail application moved by the accused petitioners.

(2.) It is stated in the second bail application that the prosecutrix is more than 19 years old grownup girl and under pressure of villagers, her father Gulab Meena lodged a false F.I.R. No. 262/2012 on 8.11.2012 for the offence under Section 376(2)(G) IPC and Section 5(2)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The police due to ulterior motive arrested co-accused Kaishi @ Sonu @ Hansraj on 20.11.2012 and filed charge-sheet against him and investigation against the accused petitioners was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The case of co-accused Kaishi @ Sonu @ Hansraj committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar and prosecutrix and P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Both the important witnesses of prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution and denied the story of rape. It is stated that the prosecutrix has been declared hostile and the police without any justified reason tried to arrest the petitioners, the accused petitioners moved bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the court below but the court below without appreciating the facts of this case rejected the bail application vide order dated 22.5.2013. The petitioners thereafter filed the first bail application before this Court and it has been stated by the counsel for the accused petitioners that due to unavoidable circumstances counsel for he petitioners could not appear before this Court and his court clerk sought adjournment but his request was not accepted and this court rejected the bail application vide order dated 14.8.2013.

(3.) This court passed the following order: