Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishna Pandey vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:25850) on 24 June, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:25850]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 863/2024
Krishna Pandey S/o Lt. Anil Pandey, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Panditan Dhurehra, Ps Ghazipur, Up, Present Residence
Taktakpura Kuber Nagar Colony, Lane No. 3 Ps Cantt Varanasi,
Up (Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Savita D/o Sh. Ram Kishan, R/o Bijwadiya Road, Bilara,
Jodhpur Rural, Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR (VACATION
JUDGE)
Judgment
24/06/2024
The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has
been filed by the appellant against the order dated 27.05.2024
passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan in
Cr. Misc. Bail Case No.144/2024 (Sessions Case No.86/2024),
whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been
arrested in connection with FIR No.86/2024, registered at Police
Station Bilara, District Jodhpur Rural, for offences under Section
376 (2)(n) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)
[2024:RJ-JD:25850] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-863/2024]
(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel submitted that appellant, who is aged about 26 years, got
acquainted with respondent No.2, who is aged about 34 years and
a well educated girl, in the month of June 2023. Learned counsel
submitted that as per the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2, the
appellant developed physical relationship with her on a false
pretext of marriage. The appellant had sexual intercourse with her
on multiple occasions. Learned counsel submitted that as per the
FIR, in the month of February, 2024, appellant refused to marry
her on the ground that she belongs to a lower caste.
Learned counsel submitted that relationship between the
appellant and the respondent No.2 was always consensual.
Learned counsel also submitted that there is nothing on record to
indicate that the appellant had ever pressurized the respondent
No.2 to develop physical relationship or he was in position to
dominate her will. It was further contended that respondent No.2
being a well educated matured girl was fully aware of the
consequences of entering into physical relationship with the
petitioner.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in
judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long
time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the
accused-appellant.
[2024:RJ-JD:25850] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-863/2024]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the bail
application.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case and after perusing the case diary, this
Court prima facie finds that the argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant that the relationship between the appellant and
the respondent No.2 was consensual cannot be brushed aside at
this stage. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the question as
to whether the appellant maintained any physical relationship on
the basis of a false promise to marry or not is to be decided at the
time of trial as it is a matter of evidence. In the considered
opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by
keeping the appellant behind the bars for an indefinite period
particularly when no recovery is due to be made from him. Thus,
without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act is allowed. The order dated 27.05.2024 passed by learned
Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan is set aside and it is
ordered that the accused-appellant- Krishna Pandey S/o Lt.
Anil Pandey shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR
No.86/2024, registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur
[2024:RJ-JD:25850] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-863/2024]
Rural, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before
the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called
upon to so.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purpose of adjudication of the present
appeal. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR (VACATION JUDGE)),J
105-Hanuman/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
