GHEWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present 2nd Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 32/2013, Police Station Women (Mahila) District-Barmer for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-A, 376-D, 458, 450, 302 and 120-B Indian Penal Code and under Section 5-G/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while pressing this 2nd bail application, submits that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 17.12.2013. He further submits that after that co-accused Sharwan Singh was released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considering the fact that as per FSL report no semen was detected in the vaginal swab and vaginal smear of the deceased. Learned Counsel further submits that the present petitioner is not distinguishable than that of co-accused Sharwan Singh. He further submits that soon after the incident, father of deceased lodged a report Ex. D-4 before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Barmer wherein, it was clearly stated that due to mental ailment, his daughter is missing since 30.3.2013 and the searched for her but he could not find her. Today i.e. 31.3.2013 her body was found near Kubar Mata Temple on the hill. Thereafter, Smt. Deo, the mother of deceased lodged an F.I.R. Ex. P-31 on 31.3.2013, stating therein that on 29.3.2013 in night about 3.00 A.M. her daughter was kidnapped by petitioner along with 4-5 persons. Still no report was lodged till 30.3.2013. He further submits that after arrest, one mobile phone said to have been recovered at the instance of petitioner for which father of deceased deposed that deceased was not keeping any mobile phone, therefore, no discovery was made at the instance of petitioner accused to connect the petitioner with alleged offences. He further submitted that the petitioner-accused is in custody since 1.4.2013, therefore, he prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed.