Amolak Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This second 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.60/2022 registered at Police Station Binjrad, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 342 and 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(L)/6 POCSO Act.

The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 03.02.2023.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is aged about 21 years and prosecutrix is a married woman aged about 17 years, who had known the petitioner since last three years. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner and prosecutrix were in a love affair so much so that the present petitioner had gifted a mobile phone to the prosecutrix.

However, on their relations turning strained, the petitioner has been falsely roped in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is a young boy and therefore, his continuous custody would be detrimental to his studies and future prospects. It was submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Learned counsel thus implored the Court to accept the bail application.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the allegation against present petitioner is of committing rape upon prosecutrix on 26.07.2022 and FIR in this regard was lodged on 29.07.2022 at Police Station Binjard, District Barmer and thus, the FIR was lodged soon after the incident.

Further, the prosecutrix in her statements, recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., dated 30.07.2022 & 01.08.2022 respectively, so also in her Court’s statements dated 16.11.2022 as PW.1, has maintained the allegations of being subjected to rape by the present petitioner.

In the prima facie opinion of this Court, in cases of sexual assault/rape, the statements of prosecutrix are to be considered as true and minor contradictions if any, in her statements cannot be considered at the stage of bail. Also, the young age of an accused cannot be a sole ground to enlarge him/her on bail particularly if, he/she has been charged of committing a heinous offence.

This Court without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be rejected.

Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.