Chaina Ram @ Mularam vs State Of Rajasthan

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.139/2023, 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, complainant - Mst. ‘S’ submitted a written report on 17.04.2023 at Police Station Kuchaman City, stating inter alia that the petitioner was an old acquaintance of her and therefore, he used to visit her house regularly. As per prosecution, about 5-6 months prior to the date of filing of the F.I.R., the petitioner at about 8-9 PM forcibly entered into the house of the prosecutrix and committed sexual assault upon her at the knife point and clicked obscene photos and videos of her. The petitioner thereafter constantly sexually assaulted and harassed the prosecutrix by threatening to send her obscene videos and photographs to her husband who is working in a foreign Country and making them viral on social media platforms. The prosecutrix also stated in the complaint submitted by her that when she did not accede to the terms of the petitioner, her obscene photos were circulated by the petitioner in public domain.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix who is a mature girl has lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioner after a delay of about 5-6 months from the date of alleged incident, without furnishing any justification for the same. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was having consensual relationship with the petitioner, however, on their relations turning strained, the petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case. Learned counsel further submitted that it is highly improbable that a mature married lady would not disclose the factum of commission of forcible sexual assault upon her for about 5-6 months to anyone. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 06.06.2023; challan against him has already been filed; trial is likely to take sufficiently long time; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioner; therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period.

On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner implored the Court to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has maintained her stance. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is a habitual offender, as cases of similar nature are pending against him. Learned counsel prayed that application for bail may be rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

Having gone through the F.I.R., statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., this Court prima facie finds that the prosecutrix has levelled serious allegations of sexual assault – rape against present petitioner. Prima facie this Court does not find any material on record, which may indicate that petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case due to some previous animosity between the parties. It is settled that the veracity statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be negated unless they suffer from major contradictions. This Court prima facie also finds that there is an allegation against petitioner of making obscene photos and videos of the prosecutrix viral and therefore, challan has been filed against him for the offences under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

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.