Prahlad Kumar vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. The present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 366/2012 registered at the Police Station. Hiranmagri, Dist. Udaipur for the offences under Sections 384 and 376 IPC.

The facts necessary for disposal of the bail application are enumerated herein below.

The prosecutrix Mst. ''M'' aged 28 years filed a written report with the S.H.O. Hiranmagri on 12.7.2012 with the allegations:--

On the basis of the said allegation, F.I.R. No. 66/2012 was registered and investigation commenced. Prior to filing of the report, the prosecutrix also filed and application with the State Women Commission in May, 2012 wherein also the allegation of prolonged physical relations with the petitioner was levelled. The complainant in her report as well as in the complaint submitted to the Women Commission has alleged that accused allegedly gave her some stupefying agent to drink alongwith water and then committed rape with her and thereafter also he continued to commit the acts of forcible intercourse with her after assuring her that they are husband and wife. She has further alleged that on coming to know that accused is married from before, she confronted him but he assured that he would still marry her. She has further alleged that the accused used to blackmail her by telling her that he had a blue film of her which he would make public. She has lastly stated that on 23.4.2012 the accused called her in the night at 11 and told her that he is going to Udaipur and that she should come there or else he would make public the blue film after which she filed the complaint with the Women Commission. When the prosecutrix was examined u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that the petitioner was a good teacher used to teach her at Bhinder. Thereafter she went to Udaipur for pursuing, further studies and stayed at Sector No. 6, Hiranmagri in a rented room. The petitioner allegedly came to her room and tried to develop intimacy with the prosecutrix. He also took a room on rent near the room of the prosecutrix. She has further alleged that the accused used to come to her room for studies and she also used to go to his room frequently. She has further stated that in July, 2005 in the noon at 1-11/2 the accused gave her water and tea after mixing some intoxicant therein. The prosecutrix has stated that she came to senses about four hours later and saw that her clothes were in a disheveled state and she was bleeding. When she accosted the accused with these facts, he allegedly admitted that he had established sexual relations with her whilst she was unconscious. She allegedly slapped the accused and went back to her room. She has further alleged that the accused called her on phone and threatened her that he would circulate the blue film which he possessed. She has admitted that despite all these happenings whenever accused called her she used to go to him and the accused used to establish sexual relations with her despite her resistance sometime after a scuffle and sometimes by threatening to cut himself by knife. The prosecutrix further alleged that when she came to know that the accused is already married, she contracted him. The accused told her that he did not like his wife and wanted to marry her and thereafter both of them went to Neemach Marri and there the accused put Mangala Sutra in her neck. Thereafter the accused was selected in AIEEE Examination held at jaipur in the year 2006. The accused took her to Jaipur and there they contacted sexual relations at the hotel. Thereafter also the accused used to come to Udaipur on every Saturday and Sunday and allegedly used to commit sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix thereafter was selected in B.Ed. in 2007 and went to Sirohi and the accused used to come to Sirohi also and took her to various hotels etc. where he used to have sexual intercourse with her. She went to Pushkar, Ajmer, Jaipur and Nathdwara with the accused where the accused established sexual relations with her. She has further stated that she told her brother about these facts in the year 2008 and her brother talked with the accused and his family members who apologized on behalf of the accused and the accused allegedly promised that he would destroy the blue film but thereafter again the accused started calling her on phone in the year 2009 and told her that he cannot live without her and she should come to him and ultimately she made a complaint to the Women Commission after coming to know that the accused had eloped with another girl. She has further stated that since the accused and his family members had apologized with her, therefore, the matter came to rest and she did not take any action against the accused but since accused persisted with his threats, she has filed the report.

Now the petitioner has approached seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 366/2012.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the whole story as put up by the prosecution is absolutely false. She is a major woman aged 28 years and was having consensus physical and sexual relations with the accused for the last about 6 years. Her brother became aware of these relations and in the year 2008 despite coming to know of the fact way back in the year 2008, no complaint was made as regards the alleged story of rape. He further submits that the call details which are available on record show that it was the prosecutrix who continuously called the accused on his phone which clearly shows that it was the prosecutrix who was infatuated with the accused and was carrying on the affairs with him voluntarily rather than the other way round. He submits that the accused is an engineer posted in Thermal Power Plant at Andhra Pradesh and as the case is totally a falsely foisted case, the accused deserves to be granted pre-arrest bail in the matter.

Learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner.

Upon considering the arguments advanced at the bar and upon perusal of the case diary it is evident that the prosecutrix in this case had been involved with continued sexual relations with the accused for the last nearly 6 years. Even when the first act of sexual intercourse was committed, the prosecutrix was a major girl of 21 years of age. At that time, the accused allegedly committed forcible intercourse upon her after intoxicating her but she still continued to visit the accused and the carnal acts continued till the year - 2011. Even as per the admitted allegation as mentioned by her in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., she has frequently travelled with the accused to various places and both have stayed in hotels and both established consensus physical relations. If at all the accused had forced himself upon the prosecutrix then after the first act of alleged rape there was no reason for the prosecutrix not to have reposted the matter immediately. Not only did she refrain from filing any report but persistently went to the accused and has travelled with him and has even gone to the extent of performing a ceremony of wearing Mangalsutra in the temple. The mobile call details which are available on record show that it was the prosecutrix who incessantly called the accused. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that it was the prosecutrix who was infatuated with the accused cannot be said to be of any substance. Surprisingly enough, despite the brother of the prosecutrix coming to know of the happenings way back in the year 2008 still the matter was not reported to the police. Be that as it may, any comments on the merits of the case may prejudice case of either parties.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order impugned as well as the material available on the record of the case and after giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that the instant application for pre-arrest bail filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Prahlad Kumar in connection with FIR No. 366/2012, Police Station, Hiranmagri. Udaipur the petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned investigating officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions:--

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

(2) 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; and

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