AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 291 wordsManoj Kumar Garg, J
The present 4th bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.48/2022 Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(N), 344, 323 of IPC and 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act-2012. Earlier three bail applications were dismissed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the victim has been examined before the trial court as PW-5. He further submits that the FIR in this case has been lodged after an inordinate delay of five months from the date of the incident and no explanation was given by the complainant for the said delay in filing of the FIR and there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statement of witness (PW-5). Counsel further submits that while rejecting the 3rd bail application, this Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial, but the trial is yet pending as the witnesses are not turning up before the court for their evidence. The petitioner is in the judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the 4th bail application.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the material available on record.
Looking to the facts that the victim was merely about 16 to 17 years of age at the time of incident and specific averment regarding commission of rape has been made against the present petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the instant 4th bail application is hereby dismissed.