HARIRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

(2.) The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 158/2017 of Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Ss. 366, 376(2)(F)(N) IPC. He has preferred this bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner, statement of the prosecutrix PW-5 has already been recorded before the trial court. It is submitted that as per the prosecution itself, the prosecutrix was major on the date of incident. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix eloped with the petitioner in the night of 5/9/2017 and visited several places such as Ajmer, Agra and Itawa. It is further submitted that when the prosecutrix went with the petitioner, her father lodged a missing person report at police station Osian, District Jodhpur and pursuant to that, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were detained at Agra on 8/9/2017 and were produced before the police station Osian where the prosecutrix gave her police statement on 9/9/2017, in which, she had specifically admitted that she went with the petitioner as per her own free will. It is further argued that now the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial court wherein, she has admitted that she visited Ajmer, Agra and Itawa with the petitioner in bus where other several persons were present but she did not make any complaint to any person that the petitioner abducted her. It is submitted that the prosecutrix in her crossexamination has also admitted her photographs with the petitioner in happy mood. It is submitted that from the fact that despite having opportunity, the prosecutrix had not raised any alarm and had not complained about her abduction to anybody, it is clear that relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix were consensual. Learned counsel has submitted that the photographs of the petitioner and the prosecutrix (Exbhit-D-1 to D-7) also demonstrate that the prosecutrix had no complain with the petitioner. It is argued that taking into consideration the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the allegation of sexual assault levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner is under pressure of her family members.