Chaina Ram @ Mularam And Others vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with F.I.R No.141/2023, Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, for the offences punishable under Sections 376D, 376(2)(n), 506, 228A IPC and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

As per prosecution, prosecutrix / complainant – Mst. ‘L’ on 18.04.2023 submitted a written report at Police Station Kuchaman City stating inter alia that she works for the welfare of animals and distributes medicines for them to the villagers. As per the written complaint, about 7-8 months prior to the date of incident, petitioner-Chaina Ram in the afternoon at about 02:00 P.M. came to the house of the prosecutrix on his motorbike and told her that his buffalo needs medical attention asking her to accompany him. The prosecutrix believing upon the statement of the petitioner-Chaina Ram, sat on his motorcycle. However, the petitioner instead of taking the prosecutrix to residence, took her to his old house where he committed sexual assault – rape upon the prosecutrix. Petitioner - Madan Lal at the time when the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault-rape by petitioner-Chaina Ram, who was guarding the house and thereafter he also committed rape upon her. The petitioners also snapped obscene photos and videos of the prosecutrix when she was being subjected to sexual assault. Thereafter, on various occasions, the petitioners subjected the prosecutrix to sexual assault by forcibly taking her to a deserted place under the threat of making her obscene photos and videos viral. The husband of the prosecutrix was also threatened by petitioner-Chaina Ram that the obscene videos and photos have been made viral / circulated by the petitioner-Chaina Ram.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix has lodged the F.I.R. against present petitioner after a delay of about 7-8 months from the date of alleged incident without furnishing any explanation for the same. Learned counsel urged that it is highly improbable that a mature married woman would not disclose the factum of being constantly subjected to sexual assault by accused persons to anyone despite having ample opportunities to do so. Learned counsel for petitioner-Madan Lal vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not at all involved in the commission of alleged crime. The main allegations have been levelled by the prosecutrix against petitioner Chaina Ram, however, he has been falsely roped in a criminal case by the prosecutrix. Learned counsel implored the Court to accept the bail application.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the F.I.R., challan papers, statement of prosecutrix / complainant recorded under various provisions of Cr.P.C., this Court finds that serious allegations of sexual assault – rape have been levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioners. The investigating agency after making thorough investigation has filed challan against the petitioners under various Sections of IPC and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Prima facie, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecutrix at this stage, particularly when her obscene photos and videos have been recovered by the investigating agency and she has maintained the allegations against petitioners in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that at the stage of bail, the Court is not required to extensively deal with all the material available on record and the Court is only required to prima facie satisfy itself about the commission of alleged crime and truthfulness of the allegations levelled against accused persons indicating their involvement in commission of alleged offences.

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

Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Bail Applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are 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 petitioners 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.