Mahendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary and other material on record.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.243/2019 of Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegation against the petitioner that he promised the complainant to marry her and on the pretext thereof, he committed rape upon her are absolutely false. It is argued that petitioner and the complainant were working in an Event Management Company and during that period they came in contact with each other. It is submitted that petitioner never promised to the complainant to marry her and allegation of this effect levelled by the complainant in the FIR are absolutely false. It is submitted that the complainant is a major and married lady of thirty three years and she developed relationship with the petitioner as per her own free will. It is submitted that when petitioner was engaged with someone else, the complainant, with intention to harass him and his family members and for ulterior motives, has filed this false FIR against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has already provided recorded conversation of him and the complainant on phone, in which the complainant is asking the petitioner to give her money otherwise she would take action against him in the court or police. It is submitted that petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is not required from him.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that petitioner had not only promised the complainant to marry her, rather he got married with her in a temple at Ajmer and developed physical relationship with her. It is submitted that now the petitioner has refused to recognize his marriage with complainant and as such it is clear that he had sexually assaulted the complainant on the pretext of marriage. It is also submitted that prima facie the allegation of sexual assault is proved against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the case diary.

It is not in dispute that the complainant is a major lady of thirty three years and was in relationship with the petitioner. In the complaint itself, she has specifically stated that she was in relation with the petitioner for four years and while working in an Event Management Company together, they came in contact with each other. It is also stated in the complaint as well as in the statement, the petitioner solemnized marriage with her but no such proof of said marriage is provided by the complainant before the police.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the case diary as well as other material available on record, regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Mahendra Kumar S/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar in FIR No.243/2019 of Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur he shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

(i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

(iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.