AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.480/2016 of Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 365, 377, 395 and 397 IPC. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that no recovery has been affected from the petitioner and from the medical examination report of the victim, no injury was found on the body of the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused persons viz. Lokesh @ Kobra, Saddam Kankroli, Mohd. Sahid @ Pamana, Mohd. Shabaz Khan, Prathviraj @ Monu and Aadil Hussain have already been enlarged on bail and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of co-accused.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he called complainant - Rajendra Teli at a place and when he reached there, petitioner kidnapped him and thereafter threatened him and asked him to pay ransom and forced him to make a call to his wife to give money. It is further submitted that on threatening, the complainant called his wife and asked her to give money then the petitioner instructed a person collect money from her. It is further submitted that after that the petitioner asked one Mushtak to perform unnatural sex with the complainant and also make film of said incident in mobile phone and threatened the complainant to make it viral and asked him to give more money. It is submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in the case and his role is distinguishable from that of co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence and after perusing the charge-sheet, it is clear that it is the petitioner who is the mater mind of commission of crime and he instigated co-accused Mushtak to perform unnatural sex with the complainant, 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.
Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.