BHUTTA RAM 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. 25/4/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta in Cr. Case No.67/2023, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.2/2023 registered at Police Station Mundwa, District Nagaur, for offences under Ss. 450, 376 of IPC and Ss. 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected. As per prosecution, the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault by the present appellant while she was sleeping in her house about 3 days prior to the date of lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who is about 25 years, has been falsely roped in a criminal case by the prosecutrix who is a mature married woman. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. and challan papers submitted by the investigating agency before competent criminal court after making thorough investigation into the matter, learned counsel submitted that as per prosecutrix on the date of alleged incident, she was sleeping in her house with two daughters without locking the door of the house from inside. As per prosecutrix, the appellant entered into the house and committed sexual assault ' rape upon the prosecutrix. It was urged that it is highly unnatural that a major married woman did not lock the house from inside when she was alone in the house. It is highly unnatural that she did not even shout for help when she was being subjected to sexual assault by the present appellant.

(2.) Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the appellant and the prosecutrix were having consensual relationship. However, when their family members found them in a compromising position, the appellant has been roped in a false criminal case. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the appeal.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, FIR, this Court prima facie finds that the appellant, who is aged about 25 years is in judicial custody. This Court also prima facie finds that it is highly unnatural that if a major married woman is subjected to forcible sexual assault, she would not cry for help. This Court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of appellant destroying the evidence or influencing the prosecutrix 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 appellant on bail.