AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J
Lawyers are not physically appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona
virus (COVID-19).
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the respondent No.2 has been informed regarding pendency of the present bail application. The factual report
is taken on record.
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.150/2021, Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 447 & 354 of the I.P.C. and under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act,
2012 and under Sections 3(1)(W), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, 1989.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having relationship with Mst.â€M†and in the present incident, there is no allegation
of rape. He further submits that even as per the statement of PW-2 (Mst.â€Mâ€) the rape was committed three months prior to the present incident
for which no F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in the present case. Therefore, it is prayed
that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the statements of PW-2 (Mst.â€Mâ€) recorded before the learned trial Court, in
which she has categorically deposed that she is below the age of 18 years and made specific allegation of outraging her modesty against the petitioner
and also made the allegation of the commission of rape prior to this incident.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, the
statements of PW-2 (Mst.â€Mâ€) recorded before the trial Court under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.P.C. and considering the entirety of the facts
and in particular the statement of Mst.â€M†who is below the age of 18 years, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not
inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the present bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed at this stage.