SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dtd. 12/10/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar in Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.330/2023, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.143/2023 registered at Women Police Station Sriganganagar, for offences under Ss. 376(2)(N), 313, 450, 120-B of IPC, Ss. 51, 6 of POCSO Act and Ss. 3(1)(w) (i), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who is aged about 27 years has been falsely implicated in a criminal case by the prosecutrix who is a mature girl. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was having consensual relationship with the present appellant. Drawing attention of the Court towards various documents, learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix solemnized marriage with the appellant on 6/10/2022 at Shiv Mandir, Near Punjab National Bank. Attention of the Court was further drawn towards an order dtd. 21/10/2022 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CRLMP No.7100/2022 wherein the prosecutrix and the appellant sought protection from the family members of the prosecutrix as they were having apprehension of threat to their life and liberty. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix as a matter of fact is wife of the present appellant, who on their relations turning strained, has falsely implicated the appellant in a false criminal case.

(2.) Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. However, they were not in a position to refute the fact that the appellant and the prosecutrix are major and have solemnized marriage with each other. They are also not in a position to refute the fact that the appellant and the prosecutrix had jointly filed a Cr. Misc. Petition (supra) before this Court seeking protection from the family members of the prosecutrix having apprehension of threat.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that as per the FIR, the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner appellant for the first time in the year 2018 and the FIR has been lodged after a lapse of five and a half years. This Court also prima facie finds that the prosecutrix solemnized marriage with the appellant and by way of filing a Cr. Misc. Petition (supra) before this Court, she sought protection for herself and for the appellant from her family members as they apprehended threat to their life and liberty. This Court also prima facie finds that no recovery is due to be made from the appellant. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.