GAUTAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act') has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Child Right Prevention Act, 2005, Rajsamand (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial court') in Criminal Misc. (Bail) Case No. 140/2019 whereby, the trial court has dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) The appellant has been arrested in FIR No. 268/2018 of Police Station Railmagra, Distt. Rajsamand for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 342, 376(2)(dha) IPC, Sections 5(tha)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complaint regarding missing of the prosecutrix was lodged on 8.9.2018 whereas, as per the complaint itself, the prosecutrix was missing from 21.8.2018. It is further submitted that in the complaint, father of the prosecutrix has alleged that one Narayan Lal might have abducted his daughter, however, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant, Mukesh and one lady Balki on the basis of statements of the prosecutrix recorded during the course of investigation. It is submitted that the allegations of abduction and sexual assault levelled against the appellant are absolutely false. It is argued that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix eloped with the appellant and lived with him at Kanpur for about 45 days on her own free will, however later on, after returning from Kanpur, she has levelled allegation of sexual assault against him only with the intention to extort money under pressure of her family members. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and trial of the case is likely to take time.