Jyot Singh @ Jyoti vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.109/2023 Police Station Sameja Kothi, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 354, 305, 376AB, 376DB and 120-B of IPC and under Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that as per prosecution story, on seeing the minor daughter of the complainant, Mst. ‘K’ who is aged about 10 years alone in the house, the petitioner who is aged about 25 years called her in the house of one, Rajendra Kumar with the aid of one, Priyanka and thereafter, committed sexual assault upon her. As per prosecution story, minor daughter of the complainant fearing shame and disrepute to her family on the alleged act coming to the knowledge of others, committed suicide by hanging herself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence available on record indicating that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence. Attention of the court was drawn towards the statements of the complainant, Ramandeep Kaur and Roshan Singh etc., recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to contend that these witnesses had reached the place of alleged incident only on being told about the same by the brother of the deceased namely Princedeep Singh and saw the deceased and the petitioner sitting on a bed however, they had not seen the petitioner committing sexual assault upon the deceased. Attention of the court was also drawn towards the statements of the complainant recorded under Section 161 CrPC to contend that the petitioner himself had called the complainant at about 9:15 AM and informed that his son – Princedeep is levelling false allegations against the petitioner, even though he has not committed the alleged offence. Learned counsel submitted that had the petitioner been guilty of the alleged act of sexual assault he would not have called the complainant/father of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that a false and concocted story has been put forward by the prosecution only in order to harass and humiliate the petitioner, though there is not an iota of evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix committed suicide being disturbed and perturbed by the false story which had been narrated by her family members especially her brother.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.06.2023; challan has already been filed; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioner; the trial of the case is likely to consume a long time to be concluded, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an inordinate period. It was thus, prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and jointly submitted that the allegation against the petitioner who is aged about 25 years is of committing sexual assault upon a minor girl aged about 10 years and therefore, looking to the seriousness of the accusations, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

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

Having considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and challan papers, this Court prima facie, finds that serious allegation of committing heinous offence has been levelled against the present petitioner. From the perusal of the statements of the brother of the deceased, Princedeep Singh who is an eyewitness of the alleged incident, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, this Court finds that on seeing the present petitioner commit sexual assault upon deceased, he rushed to the house of Ramandeep and informed her about the alleged incident. This Court also prima facie, finds that Ramandeep in her statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC has fortified the fact that on reaching the place of alleged incident, she had seen the petitioner sitting on a bed with the deceased.

In view of aforesaid factual scenario and after taking into consideration the statements of other various witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of regular bail, therefore, the application for bail is dismissed.

The petitioner however, shall be at liberty to move a fresh bail application after the statements of Princedeep, Kuldeep Singh and Ramandeep Kaur are recorded before the competent criminal court.

The competent criminal court is expected to record the statements of aforesaid witnesses on priority basis.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above, are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same.