SHAHRUKH 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.5/2024, registered at Police Station Luni, Jodhpur City West, for the offences under Ss. 363, 506 and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Ss. 5(l)/6 and 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is aged about 25 years has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel contended that though, the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sec. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has levelled the allegation of sexual assault- rape against the present petitioner, however, during her Court statements recorded before the competent criminal court as PW.1, she has not supported the prosecution's story and has turned hostile. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix- 'D' during her Court statements as PW.1 has clearly stated that she never even met with the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that the investigation has already been completed against the present petitioner and the statements of the prosecutrix have been recorded before the competent criminal court as PW.1 wherein, she has not levelled any specific allegation of she being subjected to sexual assault- rape by the present petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner 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-petitioner. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in view of the fact that the prosecutrix- 'D' during her Court statements has not supported the prosecution's story, he has no objection in case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail.

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the prosecutrix- 'D' during her Court statements has not supported the prosecutions story and has clearly stated that she was not subjected to the sexual assault- rape by the present petitioner; the statements of prosecutrix- 'D' have already been recorded before the competent criminal court. This court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses or tampering with the evidence or fleeing away from justice, in case, he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.