KUNWAR SINGH BHADURIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-Appellant Kunwar Singh Bhaduriya has laid this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act of 1989') to assail impugned order dated 01.09.2017 passed by Special Court, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court') rejecting bail application of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that an FIR came to be lodged with Police Station Kudi Bhagtasni, District Jodhpur West on 17.05.2017 which was registered as FIR No. 134/2017. In the FIR, besides appellant, one more incumbent Gaurav Singh was charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376(2)(n) IPC, Sections 3/4 and 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet in the matter.

(3.) The effort made by the appellant before learned trial Court provided abortive, inasmuch as, his bail plea was rejected. It is argued by learned counsel that although appellant is named in the FIR but no role as such is attributed to him in commission of offence. Learned counsel has also referred to the statement of victim (Prosecutrix) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein overt-acts are attributed to co-accused Gaurav Singh. Learned counsel would contend that in the statement of victim (Prosecutrix) under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the only allegation against appellant is that he accompanied both of them and even allegation of developing physical relationship with the victim (Prosecutrix) and entering into matrimony with her are also against Gaurav Singh. Learned counsel has also argued that there is no evidence worth the name that he enticed the victim or played any active role in her kidnapping and therefore, prima facie, offence under Sections 363 & 366 IPC is also not made out against him. Lastly, learned counsel submits that learned trial Court has not examined the bail plea of appellant in right perspective.