PRABHU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second bail application has been submitted after challan has been filed against the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The story of the prosecution is that Smt. Suman was residing with her parents and her baby. On 8-8-94 Bajranglal and Chena Ram came to her in a taxi belonging to Prabhuram. She was told that her husband's elder brother's wife was calling her. She went with them. Prabhuram met in the way and sat in the taxi. It is further alleged that she was taken to Ganga Theatre and was made to sit under threat there and to see film. After the picture was over she was taken to a room which belonged to Prabhuram. It is alleged that she was raped by all the three persons in that room. She was under threat and therefore she did not tell the story to her parents when she came back to her residence. Later on when she reached to the house of her husband she told the story to him. A complaint was submitted to the Magistrate who forwarded it under Sec. 156(3), Cr. P. C. to the concerned police station. A case under Sections 376 and 366, I P C. was registered and investigated then challan was put up.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused-petitioner has been 'Against order of Shashikant Sharma, District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner, in Cri. Case No. 651 of 1996, D/- 7-11-1996 falsely implicated and there is no allegation that he raped Smt. Suman. He has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner should be granted bail. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this bail petition and had drawn my attention towards the statement of Smt. Suman recorded by the polices. He has also submitted that charge has been framed against the accused and the case is fixed for evidence before the learned Sessions Judge in the next week.