SHER MOHAMMAD 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. 11/9/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.238/2023, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.405/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bhilwara, for offences under Ss. 376(2)(N) and 450 of IPC and Ss. 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely roped in the present case by the prosecutrix. Drawing attention of the Court towards FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix is a mature married woman who is living separately from her husband. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix in the FIR has stated that about six years back, the appellant promised to marry her and developed physical relationship under this fictitious assurance. Learned counsel submitted that it is highly improbable that a mature married woman would not be able to uncover the truth of a promise of marriage made to her by a married man particularly when she has given birth to a child out of this relationship. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix who is mature married woman and mother of two children, had fallen in love with the appellant as she needed companion and freely exercised her choice of voluntarily and consciously developing consensual sexual relationship with the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has been roped in a false case by the prosecutrix on their relations turning strained. 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.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor. 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 FIR, the prosecutrix remained in consensual relationship with the appellant for more than six years, on a fictitious promise of marriage made to her by the appellant. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, it is highly improbable that a mature married woman would maintain consensual relationship with a man for about six years under the fictitious promise of marriage, particularly when she had the knowledge of the appellant being already married. 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.