BHARAT LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a bail application filed by the accused -petitioner, Bharatlal alias Fatta, a young boy of 21 years, who is alleged to have kidnapped/abducted the prosecutrix Mst. Guddi alias Sharda. Earlier to this accused Ram Singh, Jiwan and Lakhkho in this case were ordered to be released on bail by my brother Hon'ble M.B. Sharma, J. vide his order, dated March 25, 1988. the allegations in the case are that one Pooran Singh, father of the prosecutrix, lodged a report on December 13, 1987 alleging that his daughter Guddi has been kidnapped by Bharat and that he was accompanied by some more persons. It was also mentioned (hat a box which was having jewellry and cash has also been taken away by the accused. She is alleged to have been recovered on January 2, 1988 and was medically examined. When her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC she came out with a story that there were two more persons when she was removed from the village and that she was taken to Jaipur in a train and thereafter to Ahmedabad then to Bombay. She how ever, alleged rape against these persons. She also stated that the cause of removal was a previous enmity between the accused persons and her father and that she was abducted with a motive to humiliate her family. She was medically examined and Medico Legal Jurist opined that she was above 16 years and below 18 years. Regarding rape he could not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix neither on any part of the body nor on genital organs and that in her vagina entered only one index finger. He could not opine, about the commission of rape and stated that for previous sexual intercourse opinion will be given after receiving the chemical examination report. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC on January 4, 1988 where some more accused persons were sought to be implicated and a case of gang rape was alleged. It was further stated that accused Bharatlal had taken her to his relations' place, both at Bombay as well as in Brindavan. She also came out with a case that she was taken to Bombay in a jeep. Accused moved a bail application which was rejected by the Sessions Judge.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner stated that it is a case where love affairs were going on between the accused and the prosecutrix and she had voluntarily gone with him upto Bombay and that she is a major girl and she wanted to marry him, but because the relations between her parents and the accused are badly strained this false case is made out against him. It is submitted that to the same effect the accused has given a statement while interrogated by the police immediately at the time of occurrence. Learned Counsel submits that his client is still ready and willing to marry the prosecutrix if her parents are ready and willing to give her in matriage to him. It is submitted that the persons who were being made accused in this case are father of the petitioner, his uncle, his three brothers Khoobi, Lakho and Govinda, his mother and sisters. Two more relations of the petitioner have been added as accused in the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC namely, Gokulchand and Pritam. It is submitted that Gokul is the first cousin being Bhua's son of the petitioner and Pritam is first cousin of the father. It is submitted that the accused in fact was apprehended With the prosecutrix two days before the arrest and recovery has been shown later on. From 31 -12 -1987 upto 2 -1 -1988 the prosecutrix has been subjected to several threats by her parents and Ors. and statement has been taken from her under Section 161 Cr.PC it is submitted that she was further tortured to give a statement under Section 164 Cr.PC which is wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence and other evidence of the prosecution. It is also submitted that a speaking order was passed by Hon'ble Justice M B. Sharma, J. while granting bail to Ram Singh, Jiwan and Lakho in this case.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has supported the contentions of the learned Counsel for the complainant.