Satyaprakash vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1294 Raj

[2023/RJJD/003733]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 625/2023

Satyaprakash S/o Mukhram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kolsiya, P.S. Jhunjhunun At Present Pvt. Teacher Jai Hanuman Sec. School, Punasar, Dist. Jodhpur.

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramawatar Singh.

Mr. Jai Kishan.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.

Mr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

Reportable

03/02/2023

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with

F.I.R. No.03/2022, registered at Police Station Matoda, District

Jodhpur, for offences under Sections 365, 342, 376(2)(N), 376D &

384 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case

has been foisted against the petitioner. Learned counsel further

submitted that there are major discrepancies in the prosecution

story. Learned counsel drew the Court's attention towards the

statement of Mukesh Lahoti recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C

wherein he stated that on 07.01.2022, he was at his home and his

father was informed by Baya that a girl had climbed the school

[2023/RJJD/003733] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-625/2023]

boundary and went inside. Mukesh along with his father,

Shankarlal went to the school and found wife of Behrupiya who

told them that her husband had gone to the bathroom but the

bathroom was locked from inside. Thereafter, Shankar Lal peeked

into the bathroom from its roof and saw that the girl was sitting

inside the bathroom. Upon being asked to open the door, the girl

unlocked the door and stated herself to be daughter of

Kumbharam Godara and sister of Jagdish whereupon Mukesh

Lahoti called Jagdish to inform about his sister's whereabouts who

came to the spot and took her with him.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that a different

version of prosecution story has been narrated in the FIR lodged

by the brother of the prosecutrix, stating inter alia that the girl

was found in an unconscious state in the bathroom. Learned

counsel further drew court's attention towards the statement of

prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., pointing towards

major discrepancy that she stated the date when she left the

home to be 06.01.2022 which completely shakes the prosecution

story. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the prosecutrix in her

statements under Section 164, stated that the accused-petitioner

with co-accused Magraj and Girdhari Ram had been sexually

assaulting her for last 1-2 years which was not disclosed even to

the family members clearly indicating towards a consensual

relationship between them.

On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel

implored the court to accept the present application under Section

439 Cr.P.C. and enlarge the petitioner on bail.

[2023/RJJD/003733] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-625/2023]

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

complainant jointly submitted that there are clear allegations of

forceful sexual assault levelled upon the petitioner by the

prosecutrix in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

The prosecutrix in the statements unequivocally stated that

present petitioner, her teacher along with co-accused had been

sexually assaulting her under coercion for last 1-2 years. It was

thus prayed that looking to the seriousness of the offence,

indulgence of bail should not be granted to the accused by this

Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

From the perusal of record, it is clear that present petitioner

is aged about 35 years and working as teacher in the school

where prosecutrix studied, who has just turned major and is in her

late adolescent years.

This Court is of the opinion that considering the teacher-

student relation and the age difference between the accused-

petitioner and prosecutrix, it can be presumed that the accused-

petitioner was in a position to control or dominate over the will of

the victim. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the

prosecutrix could freely consent to advances made by the

accused-petitioner or by the co-accused.

This Court after going through the charge sheet filed by the

Investigating Agency has come to conclusion that there is a prima

facie allegations of serious nature against the petitioner. In the

present case, since the FIR was lodged by the brother of the

[2023/RJJD/003733] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-625/2023]

prosecutrix, the contradictions in the FIR and statements of

prosecutrix and other witnesses under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C

cannot be considered at this stage. As far as argument with

regard to delay in filing of FIR is concerned, suffice it to observe

that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held

that complaint/FIR in such nature of crimes can be lodged even

after long passage of time. Looking to the age of the victim

coupled with the seriousness of crime against her, the story of the

prosecutrix cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that she

did not report the matter to family/police immediately after the

incident.

Therefore, there is no substance in the application and,

hence, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at

liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording of statements

of the prosecutrix before competent criminal court.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)