KRISHNA KUMAR 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.20/2024 registered at Police Station Rajaldesar, Dist. Churu, for the offences under Ss. 376(2)(n), 366, 506 and 417 of IPC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix and the petitioner both aged about 24 years were having a consensual relationship. However, upon relations between them turning strained, the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in a criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix eloped with the present petitioner on 9/12/2023 and remained in his company out of her own free will and volition.

(2.) Learned counsel submitted that while the prosecutrix was in the company of the petitioner, she solemnized the marriage with him at Arya Samaj Mandir, Merti Gate, Jodhpur. Thereafter, she stayed with him in a hotel namely Lord Shiva hotel. It was submitted that these facts are sufficient to establish that the prosecutrix, despite having ample opportunities, did not disclose the factum of she being abducted or subjected to forcible sexual assault-rape by the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecutrix has given statements against the petitioner under various Ss. of Cr.P.C. under the pressure of her family members and that no obscene photos or videos of the prosecutrix allegedly captured by the petitioner have been recovered by the Investigating Agency.

(3.) Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not even been charge-sheeted for the offences under IT Act, 2000; the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.