JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 118/2023 registered at Police Station Jalupura District Jaipur City North and charge-sheeted for the offence(s) under Ss. 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Sec. 67a of I.T. Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who is aged about 55 years with no criminal antecedents, is the primary bread-earner for his family, is falsely implicated in the present matter. The FIR was also filed with a delay of over a month and was only filed to settle the land/financial dispute pending between the parties, who are also related to each other. It is contended that the medical is also inconclusive and does not suggest commission of the alleged offence. Without prejudice to his other arguments, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since investigation in the matter is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, further incarceration of the applicants till conclusion of trial, which is likely to take long, is not required.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted that the overwhelming evidence procured, including the hotel record, the pendrive containing obscene photos/videos of the victim, points to the active involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence as alleged. It is further highlighted that the applicant, on previous occasions, have been restrained under Ss. 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is a strong chance that he may attempt to influence witnesses/evidence, thereby prejudicing trial.