HARISH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant 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.200/2023, registered at Police Station Salumbar, District Udaipur, for the offences under Ss. 376(3) and 376(2) (n) of the IPC and Sec. 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner is of committing sexual assault-rape on the victim 'D'. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel submitted that initially specific allegation of committing rape on victim 'D' was levelled against the co-accused Laxman.

(2.) However, later on the victim 'D' in her statements recorded under various Sec. of Cr.P.C. levelled allegation of sexual assault-rape against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons. Learned counsel further submitted that there are grave variations and contradictions in the story narrated by the victim 'D'. The investigating agency also, during the course of investigation has not found the story narrated by the victim 'D' to be true and a correct version of the events which had taken place in the matter. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel submitted that the allegation of sexual assault-rape has been levelled by the prosecutrix against the present petitioner and Rohit, Lucky, Vishnu, Vikas, Bansilal, Ravi and Surji. However, the investigating agency has filed charge sheet against Laxman, Rohit and the present petitioner only, for the offences under Ss. 372(2)(n) of the IPC and offences punishable under POCSO Act. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the Investigating Agency for exonerating the other accused persons from the charges. The Investigating Agency has therefore adopted a pick and choose practice while arresting the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that there is a delay of about 4 months in lodging of the FIR by the complainant. The said delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the statements of the victim 'D' (P.W. 01) have already been recorded before the competent criminal court on 17/11/2023. The statements of other material witnesses have also been recorded before the competent criminal court. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the present petitioner who is aged about 28 years behind the bars for an indefinite period of time as the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner implored the Court that the petitioner who is in judicial custody, may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds sufficient force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the FIR lodged by the complainant, a specific allegation of sexual assault-rape on the victim 'D' was levelled against on Laxman only. The victim 'D', thereafter, in her statements recorded under various Sec. of Cr.P.C. has levelled an allegation of sexual assault-rape committed upon her against a number of persons including the present petitioner. The Investigating Agency has arrested a few persons who have been named by the victim 'D', however, the other persons though named by her, have not been arrested/chargesheeted without any reason/explanation for the same. This Court is not convinced as to how the Investigating Agency while charge sheeting the petitioner, has left out a few other accused persons though they were specifically named by the victim 'D' in her statements recorded before the competent criminal court.