Rajendra, Raju Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

 In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 8053/2018

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R.

No.27/2018, Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 342, 384, 354-Gha, 376 of IPC and Section 66-D, 67 of

Information & Technology (Amendment) Act.

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

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R has been lodged after seventeen days of the incident for which there is no

satisfactory explanation. The prosecutrix is a married lady of 29 years of age and after calling the present petitioner, she has gone with him on

motorcycle. The conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.Â

The learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail.

I have gone through the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which does not inspire the confidence for the alleged

offence against the present petitioner and I have also gone through the transcription produced in the case diary of the conversation which took place

on the spot between the prosecutrix and the petitioner and other persons standing in the vicinity of the area, this Court is of the opinion that the bail

application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rajendra @ Raju Ram S/o Hari Kishan arrested in connection

with F.I.R. No.27/2018, Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two

surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and

as and when called upon to do so.

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 6450/2018 &

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 7589/2018 :

These applications for anticipatory bail have been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.27/2018, Police Station

Jayal, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 342, 354-D, 384, 376 of IPC and Section 66D, 67 of I.T. Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that when the prosecutrix and one Rajendra @ Rajuram were standing in a hutment, they asked the

whereabouts of the prosecutrix and Rajendra @ Rajuram and when other villagers came on the spot, an audio and video of the entire incident was

made. In the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, no allegation of rape is levelled against the present petitioners.

The learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion

that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Ghisa Ram S/o Deva Ram and (2) Om

Prakash S/o Nimba Ram, in connection with F.I.R. No.27/2018, Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur, the petitioners shall be released on bail; provided

each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned

Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioners 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 any police officer; and

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