VEENA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with the FIR No. 178/2022 registered at Police Station Raniwada, District Jalore for the offences punishable under Ss. 384, 365, 366, 343, 376(2)(n) and 376-D of IPC.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a missing person report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, thereafter, she was recovered by the police from Manali, Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, her statement was recorded, in which she admitted that she went alongwith the petitioner and roamed with the petitioner at so many places. In the statement recorded under Sec. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix admitted that she roamed with the petitioner at so many places and during this period she did not raise any hue and cry. Counsel submits that prosecutrix was major and if anything happened that was happened with the consent of the prosecutrix. Challan of the case has been presented and no investigation is pending against the petitioner. The accused-petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.