NARESH 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 FIR No.44/2024 registered at Siriyari, District Pali, for offences under Ss. 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC, Sec. 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 67 of IT Act. Drawing attention of this Court towards the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about nine years from the date when she was allegedly subjected to sexual assault-rape by the present petitioner for the first time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecutrix for lodging the FIR No.44/2024 after a delay of about nine years. Learned counsel further submitted that allegation against the present petitioner is that he circulated some obscene photographs of the prosecutrix on social media platform. Learned counsel submitted that the investigation against the present petitioner has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent criminal court.

(2.) Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to conclude; therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that he may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about nine years when the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault-rape for the first time. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the impugned FIR has been lodged after a delay of about 8-9 years from the date of the alleged incident without any plausible explanation for the same. This Court also prima facie finds that though there is an allegation against the present petitioner of circulating the obscene photographs of prosecutrix on social media platform, however, he cannot be kept in judicial custody for an indefinite period since the investigation against the present petitioner has already been completed. This court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses 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.