Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shyamlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:958) on 7 January, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:958]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9213/2024
Shyamlal S/o Baburam, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Janguwas
Bhacharna, P.s. Luni,dist. Jodhpur,raj. (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ghevar Ram S/o Amara Ram, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Bhacharna,
P.s. Luni, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
Mr. Raja Ram for Complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
07/01/2025
1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483
BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.146/2023, registered at Police Station
Luni, Jodhpur Jodhpur City West, for the offences under Sections
312, 376D, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 5(g)(l)/6 of the
POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, the victim ‘M’ was subjected to forcible sexual assault
– rape by the present petitioner and the co-accused – Kaluram @
Suresh about 5 months prior to the date of lodging of the FIR. The
further allegation levelled against the petitioner and the co-
accused is that they had allegedly captured some obscene
(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:35:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:958] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9213/2024]
photographs of the victim ‘M’ and thereafter, threatened her not to
disclose the said incident to anyone lest her obscene photographs
would be circulated on the social media platforms.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner who is aged about 29 years has been falsely implicated
in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the
charge-sheet, learned counsel submitted that though there is an
allegation against the present petitioner that he had blackmailed
the victim ‘M’ by threatening to circulate her obscene photographs
on the social media platforms, however neither any obscene
photographs of the victim ‘M’ have been recovered by the
investigating agency nor the petitioner has been charge-sheeted
for the offences under Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. Learned counsel further contended that the statements of
the victim ‘M’ have already been recorded before the competent
Criminal Court, therefore, now there is no apprehension of the
petitioner influencing her or other material prosecution witnesses
of the case.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody and the trial against the petitioner is likely to
consume sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may
be granted to the accused-petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the victim ‘M’
during her Court statements has levelled specific allegation that
she was subjected to forcible sexual assault – rape by the present
(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:35:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:958] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9213/2024]
petitioner, therefore, looking to the seriousness of allegation
levelled against the present petitioner, the petitioner does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel, thus, prayed that
the present bail application may be rejected straightway.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the
impugned FIR has been lodged after a delay of about five months
from the date of the alleged incident without any plausible
explanation for the such inordinate delay. This Court also prima
facie finds that the co-accused Kaluram @ Suresh (S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No.15099/2023) has already
been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024
and the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from
that of the above named co-accused. It is to be noticed that the
statements of the victim ‘M’ have already been recorded before
the competent Criminal Court and the prosecution has not shown
any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the remaining
prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in
case he is enlarged on bail, thus without expressing any opinion
on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail.
9. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner
Shyamlal S/o Baburam arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.146/2023, registered at Police Station Luni, District Jodhpur
(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:35:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:958] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9213/2024]
City West, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other
case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned
trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion
of the trial.
10. 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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
161-mohit/-
(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:35:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)