Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sujanaram vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 February, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16676/2021
Sujanaram S/o Sh. Kanaram, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Kalbi,
R/o Karlu, P.s. And Teh. Jaswantpura, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).
(Presently Lodged In Sub Jail, Bhinmal).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah (VC)
Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore (VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP
Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi (VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
07/02/2022
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, as per guidelines,
lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts,
therefore, hearing of the matter is being taken up only through
video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the complainant appearing through video conferencing so also
learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person. Perused the material
available on record.
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in
connection with F.I.R. No.89/2021, Police Station Jaswantpura,
District Jalore, registered for the offence under Sections 376 &
376(2)(n) IPC.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-16676/2021]
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the
prosecutrix is 28 years old mature & married lady; as per her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she was performing
work of Bar Dancer and relations were made between the accused
petitioner and the prosecutrix on mutual consent; there is dispute
between the prosecutrix and her husband; she stopped working as
dancer which was advised by the accused petitioner; as per her
statement, she lived with Surya Rajput and wanted to live with the
accused petitioner; further trial will take sufficiently long time.
With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed
that the benefit of bail may also be granted to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor so also learned
counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant states that the prosecutrix
was sexually harassed on assurance of marriage.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar
Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal
No.1443/2018, decided on 22.11.2018) has held that the
consensual sex will not amount to rape. Similarly, while following
the judgment in the case of Dhruvaram (supra), this Court in the
case of Sachin Sukhla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal
Misc. Petition No.2092/2019, decided on 05.01.2021) has also
observed that the consensual intercourse will not amount to rape.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
taking into account the statement of the prosecutrix recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and fact that the sexual relations were
made on the assurance of marriage; trial will take sufficiently long
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-16676/2021]
time and taking into consideration the observations and ratio in
both the above-said judgments, without expressing any opinion on
the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered
that the accused-petitioner-Sujanaram son of Kanaram arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.89/2021 Police Station Jaswantpura,
District Jalore, shall be released on bail, if not required in any
other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date
of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of
the trial.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
23-Vij/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
