MOTNATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dtd. 19/6/2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur Metro in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.170/2024, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.36/2024 registered at Police Station Chakhu, District Phalodi, for offences under Ss. 376(2)(n), 376-D, 328, 344, 384 of IPC and Ss. 3(1)(w1),3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix who is a mature married woman voluntarily went away with the appellant and remained in his company for more than 15 days out of her own free will and volition. Learned counsel submitted that on relations between them turning strained, the appellant has been roped in a criminal case by the prosecutrix. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the accusation levelled against the appellant, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that during the pendency of the present appeal the parties have entered into a compromise and decided to settle their disputes amicably in the spirit of 'Lok Adalat' and therefore, he has no objection in case the appellant is enlarged on bail. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.