RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that so far as petitioner is concerned, allegation does not exist for commission of rape. The allegation aforesaid exist against Rahul. It is further stated that there is contradiction in the story given in the FIR and statement recorded under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. The prosecutrix said to have remained with Rahul for one month. She took her jewellery while leaving Rahul. She came to Laxmangarh thereafter by travelling to various places, as stated under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C., thus petitioner may be granted bail. It is moreso when nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner as jewellery was taken back by the prosecutrix herself.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.