Kuldeep Mathur, J
This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.140/2023, registered at Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 450, 228A IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
As per prosecution, prosecutrix – Mst.P submitted a written report before SHO Police Station Kuchaman City stating inter alia that the petitioner who was known to her previously, about eight months prior to the date of incident, came to her residence telling that for getting widow pension, she will have to accompany him to the pension office. Believing the petitioner, the prosecutrix went with him on his motorcycle. The petitioner instead of taking the prosecutrix to pension office, forcibly took her to a hotel, where he committed sexual assault – rape upon the prosecutrix. The petitioner also snapped obscene photos and recorded videos of the prosecutrix. As per prosecution, the prosecutrix was constantly subjected to sexual assault – rape by the petitioner under the threat making obscene pictures and videos of her, if she discloses / inform about the incident to anyone.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of about eight months from the date of incident without furnishing any explanation for the same. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix is a mature widow lady who had ample opportunities to raise objection / disclose the fact of any forcible act / behavior of the petitioner to her known persons. However, she kept mum indicating towards the fact that she was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that no obscene photos / videos have been made viral by the petitioner, rather a concocted story has been framed by the prosecutrix only with a view to tarnish the image and reputation of the petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that challan against the petitioner has already been filed before competent criminal court on 06.06.2023. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.04.2023; the trial of the case will likely to take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and jointly submitted that the complainant in her statements recorded under various sections of Cr.P.C. has maintained the allegations of rape against present petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it is settled that in the cases of sexual assault – rape, the statements of the prosecutrix are to be considered as true and minor contradictions, if any, in her statement cannot be considered at the stage of bail. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the allegation of circulating obscene photographs / videos has been found to be proved by the investigating agency and therefore, challan against the petitioner has been filed under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the seriousness of the accusations against present petitioner, the present bail application may be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the F.I.R., statement of prosecutrix / complainant recorded under various provisions of Cr.P.C., in the prima facie opinion of this Court, merely because the petitioner and the prosecutrix were old acquaintances and the prosecutrix who is a mature widow woman has lodged F.I.R. after a delay of about eight months, the allegations levelled by her against present petitioner cannot be considered to be false, particularly when there is an allegation of subjecting her to repeated sexual assault by threatening to viral her obscene photos and videos, which have been made available to the investigating agency by the prosecutrix.
This Court without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
It is made clear that findings recorded and observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of the bail application. The trial court shall not be prejudiced by the same.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh bail application after the statement of prosecutrix is recorded before the competent criminal court.
It is expected from the competent criminal court that the statement of the prosecutrix will be recorded on priority basis.
