Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhopal Singh Sisodiya vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 March, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2855/2022.
Bhopal Singh Sisodiya son of Shri Bheem Singh Sisodiya, aged
about 26 years (approx.), resident of VIP Colony, Gokul Village,
Near Pani Ki Tanki, Udaipur (Raj.).
(At Present Lodged In Udaipur Jail).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Shrimali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Judgment / Order
11/03/2022
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. 481/2021, Police Station Kotwali Hiran
Magri, District Udaipur, registered for the offence punishable under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2855/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as per FIR
itself, the prosecutrix is a 42 years old matured lady; that she was
visited and lived at Mount Abu etc. at various places along with
the accused-petitioner; that as per statement of the prosecutrix
and FIR, it appears to be matter of consensual sexual relations;
that it was alleged that on the assurance of the marriage, the
prosecutrix was sexually harassed by the accused-petitioner; that
the accused-petitioner is 26 years old yound boy; that the FIR in
question was filed after a delay of four (04) years and three (03)
months that too, without furnishing any explanation for such
inordinate delay; that the charge-sheet has already been filed;
and that the trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be
granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application of the accused-petitioner and stated that the
prosecutrix has supported the story of the prosecution during her
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164
Cr.P.C.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly looking to the facts that as per FIR itself, sexual
relations were established between the accused-petitioner and the
prosecutrix on the assurance of marriage; that the prosecution
was sexually harassed by the accused-petitioner for a long time, it
appears to be a matter of consent; and that the trial will take
sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion
on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-2855/2022]
that the bail application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner
deserves to be accepted.
Hon'ble the 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.
Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered
that the petitioner, Bhopal Singh Sisodiya S/o Bheem Singh
Sisodiya, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 481/2021, Police
Station Kotwali Hiran Magri, District Udaipur, shall be released on
bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the
stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and
as and when called upon to do so.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
63-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
