Rahul vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 2136 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14799/2020

Rahul S/o Shri Shyamlal, Aged About 20 Years, By Caste Sadh, R/o Shahpura, Tehsil Riya Badi, District Nagaur.

                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State, Through P.P
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Farzand Ali, AAG-cum-GA
                                Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
                                Mr. Surendra Choudhary for the
                                complainant.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                          Judgment / Order

27/01/2021

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R.

No.212/2020, Police Station Thawla, District Nagaur for the

offences under Sections 376 (2)(n), 384 & 354-D of the IPC.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by

counsel Shri Sheetal Kumbhat representing the petitioner and Shri

Farzand Ali, AAG, assisted by Shri Mukesh Trivedi, PP and Shri

Surendra Choudhary, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Kumbhat points out that the case at hand is of prima

facie consensual relationship between the petitioner and the

complainant who is an adult woman. He submits that the

complainant herself was the aggressive partner in the relationship.

In this regard, he has drawn the Court's attention to some

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-14799/2020]

photographs, representing intense intimacy between the

complainant and the petitioner. The Court was presented with the

series of WhatsApp chats exchanged between the petitioner and

the complainant as per which, the lady tried to invite the

petitioner to her house but he resisted. Shri Kumbhat thus, urges

that the petitioner deserves indulgence of pre-arrest bail in this

case.

Learned Public Prosecutor and complainant's counsel have

vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's

counsel. They urge that not only did the petitioner seduce the

prosecutrix, but he also subjected her to rape and thereafter, her

indecent photographs were also uploaded on the social media

which led to serious repercussions for the complainant whose

marital life has been jeopardized because of the immoral acts of

the petitioner. They thus urge that the petitioner does not deserve

indulgence of pre-arrest bail.

I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions

advanced at bar and have gone through the case diary more

particularly the FIR and the two statements of the prosecutrix one

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the other recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is a young man of 20 years, whereas the

prosecutrix is an adult married woman, aged 24 years. As per the

FIR and the complainant's statements, the petitioner entitled her

as his 'Dharam Behan' about one year and four months ago. He

frequently visited the house of the complainant thereafter. On one

occasion, the petitioner allegedly subjected the complainant to

rape and threatened her that if she divulged this fact to anyone,

then she would be killed. Fearing for her life, the complainant did

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-14799/2020]

not tell anyone about this incident. The petitioner captured

indecent photographs of her in various poses and threatened her

that he would make them viral and under this threat, he regularly

pressurized the complainant for establishing physical relations

with him. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the

prosecutrix stated that the petitioner would visit her house only

when her husband (a policeman) was on duty and other family

members were not present in the house. She alleged that the

petitioner would somehow gather information regarding her being

alone and would then come to the house and force himself upon

her in isolation. She would be threatened that if she complained of

the incidents to anyone, her husband would be killed. She was

forced by the petitioner to smile and give various other poses for

the photographs. She was threatened that these photographs

would be forwarded to her husband and would also be made viral

on social media. The complainant ultimately called the petitioner's

father and complained to him that she was being blackmailed by

his son. The petitioner's father allegedly replied that his son was

innocent and the complainant herself was a woman of

questionable character. Ultimately, being fed up with the

petitioner's vile advances, she told her husband about the

incidents. In order to mitigate the situation, her husband called

the petitioner Rahul to their home and tried to talk sense into him

imploring that both of them belonged to respected families and if

things got publicized, their social standing would be affected. Her

husband asked Rahul to hand over his phone to him and close the

chapter. However, Rahul refused and threatened that he would

disseminate the photographs. Rahul scuffled with her husband and

ran away. Then, her husband talked to Rahul's father so that the

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-14799/2020]

matter could be abated there but Rahul sent her husband a

photograph in which she was smiling and threatened that he

would circulate it with other people as well. Thereafter, Rahul

uploaded her photographs on the social media and various boys of

the village got access to the same.

The Investigating Officer has collected the photographs and

the series of Whatsapp chats exchanged between the petitioner

and the complainant, which on a bare perusal indicate an intimate

physical affinity between them. At no point of time, did the

complainant make a complaint to her husband that the accused

was blackmailing her again and again, despite her resistance. The

photographs which have been annexed with this pre-arrest bail

application are indicative of a very intimate relationship between

the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner's husband is a

policeman and thus, there was no reason whatsoever that if the

allegations set out in the FIR were correct, then why the matter

was not reported to the police.

In this background and having regard to the facts and

circumstances as available on record but without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that

it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed

that in the event of arrest of petitioner Rahul S/o Shri Shyamlal in

connection with F.I.R. No.212/2020, Police Station Thawla, District

Nagaur, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he

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 :-

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-14799/2020]

(i). that the petitioner(s) shall make himself available for

interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner(s) 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 petitioner(s) shall not leave India without previous

permission of the court.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

57-Sudhir Asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)