GOPAL LAL 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. 5/6/2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur in Cr. Misc. case No.173/2024, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.44/2024 registered at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur, for offences under Sec. 376 of IPC and Ss. 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 implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of this Court towards the impugned order dtd. 5/6/2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant herself appeared before the court and submitted that she voluntarily went away with the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix further stated that she was not subjected to forcible sexual assault by the present appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged by her under the pressure of her family members. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid statements made by the complainant before the competent criminal court, the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant ought not have been rejected by the court below. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. However, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in view of the fact that the prosecutrix herself stated before the competent criminal court at the time when the order dtd. 5/6/2024 was passed that she voluntarily went away with the present appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix further stated that she was not subjected to forcible sexual assault by the present appellant. Therefore, she has no objection in case the present petitioner is enlarged on bail.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the complainant herself has stated before the competent criminal court that she voluntarily went away with the present appellant and also stated that she was not subjected to sexual assault by 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.