ARPIT 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.16/2023 registered at Police Station Sallopat, Dist. Banswara, for the offences under Ss. 363, 366, 344, 376(2) (n) of IPC and Ss. 5(l)/6, 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is aged about 18 years was having a consensual relationship with the victim-' Mst. R'. Drawing attention of the Court towards the ossification test report of the victim-' Mst. R', learned counsel submitted that the age of the victim has been determined to be between 16 to 18 years.

(2.) Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner and victim-"Mst. R' were in a consensual relationship and the victim had voluntarily eloped with the present petitioner on 24/12/2023. Learned counsel submitted that while she was in the company of the present petitioner, she travelled with him to various places using public transportation and stayed with him at Ambrela (Gujarat) and Jhaloda (Gujarat) for more than one month. Learned counsel further submitted that the victim despite having ample opportunities of disclosing the factum of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to sexual assault-rape by the present petitioner, did not inform anyone about the same, which is indicative of the fact that she was in the company of the present petitioner out of her own free will and volition.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan against him has already been filed 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 vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.