INDER RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor case diary perused. The investigation is complete. Charge -sheet has been filed and further arrest of the petitioners is no more required purposes.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel that initially a report was made by Budhram on March 14, 95 at P.S. Neemkathana and on the said report proceedings Under Section 174, Cr.PC were initiated as the report was incomplete about the commission of any cognizable offence. It was also contended hat at the time of inquest report also it was not disclosed by any person that any rape was committed on the victim Smt. Shakuntala and she committed suicide under a fear of being defamed in the society. The learned Counsel contended that after 5 days of the incident a report was made by Sundaram on March 19, 1995 narrating the story about the commission of rape and murder of Smt. Shakuntala in which the grand -mother of the deceased and her sister were made as eye -witness of the incident. It was, then contended by the learned Counsel that though it was improbable that the above eye - witnesses could remain silent for such a long period in case they had been the eye -witness of the above incident yet there statement do not suggest that any of the petitioners committed rape on Smt. Shakuntala. The learned Counsel contended that as per their statements also it was the co -accused Balla who committed rape and even before the Panchayat the entire case was that it was the co -accused Balla who committed rape. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that prima -facie the entire story of the prosecution appears to be doubtful and at this stage even if that story is taken on its face value it is co -accused Balla who committed rape on the victim and, thereafter, Smt. Shakuntala committed suicide under a fear of defamation in the society.

(3.) IT is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner Inder Raj son of Boduram shall be released on ball, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - with two sureties in' the sum of Rs. 5,000/ - each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Similarly, the petitioner -Shivram alias Bugla shall be released on bail provided his natural guardian furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ -with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ - each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the slipulation to appear in that, court or any other court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when they are called upon to do so during the pendency of the inquiry/trial, as the case may be. The bail shall be subject to the following condition: