MAHENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material on record.

(2.) The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No. 84/2019 of Police Station Semari, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Ss. 323, 376(2)(I), 376(2)(J) and 376(N) IPC and Ss. 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the complainant-prosecutrix in the FIR has named one Manoj, who sexually assaulted her in the year 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the complainant-prosecutrix in her complaint as well as in her statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. has alleged that Manoj is the younger brother of co-accused Rajendra, who assaulted her, however, as a matter of fact the petitioner is the younger brother of co-accused Rajendra and his name is Mahendra and not Manoj. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant prosecutrix in her complaint has alleged that she was working as maid in the house of Rajendra for last four years and looking to this fact it is difficult to comprehend that she is not aware about the real name of the younger brother of co-accused Rajendra. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after recording the statements of complainant-prosecutrix under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. on 9/6/2019, her statements were recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate on 11.06.21019, wherein she has not alleged anything against the petitioner. It is submitted that even in the statements recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has not named the petitioner. It is submitted that as a matter of fact a false complaint has been filed against the brother and other family members of the petitioner because the complainant-prosecutrix, who was working as maid in their house, was sacked account of her bad behaviour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this case has been filed against the petitioner and his family members only with the intention to extort money. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working as a teacher in the Rajasthan Government School and the complainant-prosecutrix and her family members are falsely implicating him to pressurize his family members.