CHAINA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.139/2023, registered at Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, for offences under Ss. 376(2)(n), 506, 450, 228A IPC and Sec. 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

(2.) As per prosecution, complainant - Mst. 'S' submitted a written report on 17/4/2023 at Police Station Kuchaman City, stating inter alia that the petitioner was an old acquaintance of her and therefore, he used to visit her house regularly. As per prosecution, about 5-6 months prior to the date of filing of the F.I.R., the petitioner at about 8-9 PM forcibly entered into the house of the prosecutrix and committed sexual assault upon her at the knife point and clicked obscene photos and videos of her. The petitioner thereafter constantly sexually assaulted and harassed the prosecutrix by threatening to send her obscene videos and photographs to her husband who is working in a foreign Country and making them viral on social media platforms. The prosecutrix also stated in the complaint submitted by her that when she did not accede to the terms of the petitioner, her obscene photos were circulated by the petitioner in public domain.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix who is a mature girl has lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioner after a delay of about 5-6 months from the date of alleged incident, without furnishing any justification for the same. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was having consensual relationship with the petitioner, however, on their relations turning strained, the petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case. Learned counsel further submitted that it is highly improbable that a mature married lady would not disclose the factum of commission of forcible sexual assault upon her for about 5-6 months to anyone. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 6/6/2023; challan against him has already been filed; trial is likely to take sufficiently long time; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioner; therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period.